Preamble

The House—after the adjournment on 7th August for the Autumn Recess—met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, MR. SPBAKER in the Chair,

NEW WRIT.

For the County of York (Ripon Division), in the room of the right hon. EDWARD FREDERICK LINDLEY WOOD (Manor of Northstead).—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Bexhill Corporation Bill [Lords] (by Order).

Further consideration, as amended, deferred till Wednesday.

Bethlem Hospital Bill [Lords] (by Order).

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA (BRITISH IMPORTS AND LOANS).

Mr. HANNON: 1.
asked the Undersecretary of State for India, whether he
can state the figures for the past 10 months of the current year of imports of British manufactured goods into India; the corresponding figures for the years 1921, 1922, 1923, and 1924; the total amount of Indian loans raised in London since 1921; and the total amount of the Indian debt to Great Britain at the end of October, 1925.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): As the reply consists largely of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The total value of private merchandise imported from the United Kingdom into India during the first 10 months of each of the following years was:



Rupees.


1921
132,03,72,398


1922 
120,83,37,774


1923 
110,00,73,689


1924 
112,35,40,370


1925 
101,03,29,760

The monthly returns do not distinguish between manufactured and unmanufactured goods, but the unmanufactured goods imported into India from the United Kingdom invariably form a very small proportion of the total imports from the United Kingdom.

The nominal value of India sterling loans raised by Government since 1921 is £70,000,000.

The total amount of Indian Government sterling debt at the end of October, 1925, is £324,457,000 exclusive of approximately £18,800,000 British War Loan, being the balance of the, liability taken over by India in connection with her contribution to the cost of the War.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.

Mr. HANNON: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is in a position to make a statement on the progress of Empire settlement, with details of the number of families and individual emigrants who have been assisted towards settlement in British Dominions and Colonies during the current year?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement which I made of the 27th July last, when introducing the Colonial Office Estimates for 1925–26. The total number of families and individuals who have been assisted to settle overseas during the present financial year, that is to say, from the 1st April to the beginning of the present month, is as follows:

Families 3,255, comprising 12,594 souls.
Other settlers, 10,289.

Mr. HANNON: May I ask whether the number of applications from families wishing to emigrate under this scheme is increasing?

Mr. AMERY: They are keeping up pretty well.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: How many boys have been sent out under the Big Brother movement?

Mr. AMERY: The number that went out a week ago was 150, and there is another lot due to go shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARGENTINA (BRITISH TRADE).

Colonel DAY: 7.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what has been the volume of trade with Argentina in the 10 months
ending 31st October, as compared with the other States in the South American continent?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister): Figures of our total trade with individual countries are only compiled for quarterly periods, and I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing the value of our trade with Argentina and with the rest of South America in the first nine months of 1925.
The hon. and gallant Member may also be interested in tables which will be found in the current issue of the "Board of Trade Journal" showing, for the year ended 30th September, 1925, the percentages of our total trade which are represented by the values of our trade with the individual countries of the world, including Argentina and the other South American States.

Following is the table promised:

The following table shows the value of our trade with Argentina and with the rest of South America in the first nine months of 1925.

Branch of Trade.
Trade of Great Britain and Northern Ireland during January- September, 1925.


With Argentina.
With the Rest of South America.



£
£


Imports (total)
52,572,461
33,013,224


Exports;


(a) Of Produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom
21,919,581
27,127,945


(b) Of Imported Merchandise
440,667
794,099

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH EMPTRE EXHIBITION.

Major CRAWFURD: 8.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he can state the amount which Parliament will be called upon to vote in connection with the guarantee of the British Empire Exhibition?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): Parliament will
shortly be asked to vote £1,100,000 in connection with its guarantee to the British Empire Exhibition. I should add that the Government, in common with private guarantors, will be entitled to a proportionate share of any subsequent reimbursement which may be practicable when the liquidation of the Exhibition's assets has been effected.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

SUGAR BEET.

Colonel DAY: 9.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many acres of land are now under beet cultivation in this country; how many factories are in operation for the manufacture of beet sugar; and what is the estimated output of beet sugar in Britain for the year 1925?

Major Sir HARRY BARNSTON: (for
I have been asked to reply. On the 4th June last, 56,200 acres were returned as under sugar beet cultivation in Great Britain; 10 factories are expected to manufacture sugar during the 1925–26 season; and in that period the output of refined beet sugar is estimated to be 57,000 tons.

THE following outbreaks of Foot-and-Mouth disease were confirmed between the issue of the Midlands and South of England (Regulation of Movement of Animals) Order of 1925 at 9 p.m. on Friday, 13ih November, and 12 noon on Monday, 16th November, 1925:—


County.

Number of Outbreaks.
Locality of Outbreak.
Animals authorised to be slaughtered.



Cattle.
Sheep.
Pigs.
Goats.


Essex
…
2
Roydon, Ware
—
—
3
6





Ingatestone
20
—
13
—


Oxford
…
1
Warborough, Wallingford
84
156
23
—


Lanes
…
1
Rochdale
25
—
—
—


Stafford
…
1
Eccleshall
2
—
3
—


Wilts
…
5
Liddington, Swindon, Box, Chippenham, Overton, Marlborough, Dauntsey, Chippenham, Melksham Without.
53
150
21
—





22
89
—
—





51
1,521
—
—





64
—
30
—





12
—
—
—


Totals
…
10

333
1,916
93
6

Mr. THURTLE: Would the hon. Baronet say how many of these factories are owned by foreign capital?

Sir H. BARNSTON: Obviously, I could not answer that question without notice.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

Major Sir GRANVILLE WHELER: by Private Notice
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the increase of outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease and the imposition of the Stand Still Order on movements of store cattle, he will state what further outbreaks have occurred during the weekend and make a full statement of number of outbreaks and the localities.

Sir H. BARNSTON: I have been asked to reply. Ten outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease have occurred during the week-end from 9 p.m. on Friday to 12 noon to-day. One of these (at Liddington, near Swindon) was in a free area and the remainder are in existing infected areas. Full particulars of the above cases, and a statement of the present infected areas with the number of outbreaks in each, are being circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the particulars referred to:

The undermentioned are the existing areas under restrictions:—


Area Number and County.
 Number if outbreaks in area.
Date of last outbreak.


1.
Sussex East (Area of 5 miles radius—Staplefield, Hay wards Heath) see also Area No. 10.
3
26th October.


2.
Cheshire
3
28th October.



Yorks, W. R.
15
10th November.



Lancashire
59
15th November.



(Large area of 15 miles radius of Stockport; Aston (Sheffield), Gisburn, Haslingden, Blackburn and Rochdale).




3.
Wiltshire (Area of 15 miles radius of Chippenham, Devizes and Liddington, Swindon).
28
16th November.


4.
Warwickshire (Area of 15 miles radius of Coventry)
8
10th November.


5.
Northamptonshire
7
11th November.



Rutland
2
9th November.



Leicestershire
8
11th November.



(Area of 15 miles radius of Little Bowden, Market Harborough; Edith Weston, Stamford; and Thurmaston, Leicester).




6.
Oxfordshire (Area of 15 miles radius of Warborough, Wallingford).
2
15th November.


7.
Derbyshire
5
10th November.



Staffordshire
2
14th November.



(Area of 20 miles radius of Derby and 15 miles radius of Uttoxeter and Eccleshall).




8.
Essex (Area of 15 miles radius of Chigwell Row—but excluding County of London)—15 miles of Ingatestone and 15 miles of Roydon.
3
16th November.


9.
Gloucestershire (Area of 15 miles radius of Hardwicke, Gloucester).
1
12th November.


10.
Sussex East (Area of 15 miles radius of Ashburnham, Battle), see also Area No. 1.
1
12th November.



Total
157
16th November.


The summary of the position since the 25th September, 1925, and the parts of the country now under Infected Aiea restrictions is as follows:—


Number of outbreaks: 160.


Number of counties affected: 16.


Total number of animals slaughtered or authorised to be slaughtered: Cattle, 5,037; Sheep, 5,277; Pies, 1,797; Goats, 25.


Estimated Gross Compensation: £184,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

STATISTICS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 10.
asked the Minister of Labour how many persons are now registered as unemployed, and how many as working consistently short time?

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 11.
asked the Minister of Labour the total number of unemployed for the latest available date and the number for the corresponding period of last year?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): I will, if I may, answer these questions together. At 2nd November the number of persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in
Great Britain was l,207,612 as compared with 1,228,023 at 3rd November, 1924. Figures for persons on short time are not at present available, but I am considering whether arrangements can be made to obtain such figures without undue cost.

Mr. W. THORNE: Does that figure include young persons who are not entitled to any benefit, although they may be registered at the Exchanges?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Yes, Sir.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether it is on chose figures that the Chancellor of the Exchequer bases his estimate that there are 200,000 more people in industry to-day?

Sir A. STEEL MAITLAND: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. HARRIS: Have these figures been arrived at after the numbers have been deducted of man excluded from unemployment insurance under the last Act?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: These are the live register figures and they include all persons registered at the Employment Exchanges, whether in receipt of benefit or not.

Miss WILKINSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that certain of his officers are telling people who are being refused benefit that it is no use registering?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not aware of it at all.

HON. MEMBERS: It is so.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the figures he has given indicate the success of a Tory Government in dealing with unemployment?

RELIEF WORKS.

Colonel PERKINS: 23.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the state of unemployment needs further outlay by the State on assistance to relief works; and if the Government proposes to take such action and to what extent?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: This is a matter to which the Government have given much attention, and I will have circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT a summary statement of measures approved under the various headings.

TOTTENHAM NEW POST OFFICE.

Mr. R. MORRISON: 17.
asked the Postmaster-General whether the negotiations for a site for the proposed new post office for Tottenham have been completed; and if ho can give an approximate date upon which building will be commenced?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): The purchase of the site has been completed, and it is hoped that it may be practicable to
commence the building during the next-financial year.

HOUSING (STATISTICS).

Captain BOWYER: 12.
asked the Minister of Health how many houses have been sanctioned, are being built, and have been completed under the Housing Acts of 1923 and of 1924, respectively?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): On the 1st instant the position under the Housing Acts of 1923 and 1924 was as follows:—


—
Act of 1923.
Act of 1924.


(1) Number of houses completed.
116,811
15,122


(2) Number of houses under construction.
42,001
30,956


(3) Number of houses definitely arranged for but not started.
211,840
24,046


(4) Number of houses authorised but not definitely arranged for.
49,036
20,202


Totals (Number of houses authorised).
238,288
90,326

Mr. J. JONES: Will the hon. Gentleman provide us with the figures of the houses to be let and to be sold?

Sir K. WOOD: Yea If the hon. Gentleman will put a question on the Paper, I will answer it.

Mr. JONES: I know you will.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 13.
asked the Minister of Health the total number of houses erected to date, with State assistance, under the various Housing Acts, showing separate totals for those built by local authorities and those by private enterprise.

Sir K. WOOD: With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table, giving the full information he requires, but I may say that the total number of houses erected with State assistance since the War is 344,274, of which 212,458 have been built by local authorities and 131,816 by private enterprise.

Following is the table:


NUMBER of houses completed under the various Housing Acts up to 1st November, 1925.


—

Number of houses completed.



Local Authorities.
Private Enterprise.
Total.


Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919
…
168,610
4,545
173,155


Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919
…
—
39,186
39,186


Housing, etc., 1923 Act
…
28,848
87,963
116,811


Housing (Financial Provisions), 1924 Act
…
15,000
122
15,122




212,458
131,816
344,274

Mr. THOMSON: Is the Minister satisfied with the rate of progress and the augmentation of labour in the building trade?

Sir K. WOOD: I do not express complete satisfaction, but certainly very considerable progress has been made.

LOCARNO PACT.

Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONE: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the latest information as to the progress of the negotiations in the matter of the security pact?

Commander BELLAIRS: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made in the negotiations for a mutual guarantee pact with France, Belgium, and Germany; and if he is in a position to make any statement as to the intentions and views of the Dominions and India?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Austen Chamberlain): I will, with the hon. Members' permission, answer these questions together. Since notice was given of these questions, the treaties themselves have been circulated as a Command Paper. It will, I hope, be accepted as convenient that I should reserve my explanations for Wednesday's Debate.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Could the right hon. Gentleman say in the meantime whether the Dominions have decided to become parties to the Pact?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

Mr. HURD: by Private Notice
asked the Secretary of Stale for Foreign
Affairs whether any communications have passed between His Majesty's Government and the Governments of the Dominions and of foreign countries regarding the extent and possible effect of the exemption of the Dominions and India from obligations under the Locarno Pact, and whether copies of any such communications will be in the hands of Members of this House before the discussion of Wednesday next.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave this afternoon to Questions 18 and 20, and ask him to be good enough to await Wednesday's Debate.

Mr. HURD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if those communications have passed, we shall not be discussing the matter in ignorance of a vital point?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think any communications have passed which are of importance to the discussion by the House which are not already in the hands of the House.

SHANGHAI DISTURBANCES.

Mr. FENBY: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement as regards the Shanghai disturbances last May?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As regards the facts, I cannot add anything to the statements already made in the House until the report of the International Judicial Commission appointed by the Ministers of the Treaty Powers at Peking has been received and considered. That Commission, composed of an American Judge who acts as Chairman, a British and a
Japanese Judge, opened a public inquiry at Shanghai on the 7th October. Having concluded the taking of evidence, the Commission adjourned sine die on the 27th October, in order to prepare its report.

Mr. J. JONES: Why were not the people principally interested—the Chinese —themselves represented on the Court?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Because the Chinese Government did not choose to nominate a representative.

ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.

Colonel PERKINS: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the work of the Reparation Committee has now been concluded; whether further moneys can be obtained in connection with ex-enemy war payments; and whether he can hold out hope of further grants being made cither to the most deserving cases or to those who have received nothing?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): I presume that my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to the Royal Commission for Suffering and Damage by Enemy Action. The Royal Commission issued its Final Report in February, 1924, but the payment of the awards it recommended is not yet completed, owing to delay in tracing claimants and securing from them the detailed particulars required. As has been frequently stated, the Government, after the fullest and most careful consideration, has decided that the amounts (totalling £5,300,000) already allocated to grants in respect of compensation must be regarded as final, and I can hold out no hope of this decision being reconsidered.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Have all the monies granted been paid out?

Mr. McNEILL: No, not yet.

Mr. BASIL PETO: In coming to this decision, had the Government in mind the definite pledge of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) when Prime Minister, made to the merchant service, that their claims were a first charge upon any sums recovered from Germany?

Mr. McNEILL: I can only give the time honoured reply, that all the relevant factors are being considered.

COAL INDUSTRY (SUBVENTION).

Captain GARRO-JONES: 24.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can make a statement regarding the working of the subvention scheme in aid of profits and wages in the coal industry, and, in particular, regarding its cost during the months of August. September, and, if possible, October?

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 40.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the liability of the State to date in respect of the coal subsidy; and whether he can give any estimate of the total amount now anticipated as likely to be payable by the taxpayer?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane-Fox): The cost of the subvention to the end of October is estimated to amount to about £6,000,000. A Supplementary Estimate will shortly be before the House and a full statement will then be made.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say for what amount the Supplementary Estimate will be?

Colonel LANE - FOX: No, Sir. Obviously it will have to be left until the Supplementary Estimate is presented.

IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.

Captain BENN: 25.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Civil Research Committee has completed its inquiries into the iron and steel industry; and what action the Government intends to take in connection with this?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, no action is possible until the views of the Committee of Civil Research have been communicated to the Cabinet.

Captain BENN: Would the right hon. Gentleman indicate when it is expected to reach a decision?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think it will be very long now.

Mr. DIXEY: 32.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will give a day for a discussion on the position of the iron and steel trade?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot make any statement on this subject until the Government have received the views of the Committee of Civil Research.

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: 26.
asked the Prime Minister whether any and, if so, what recommendations in reference to next year's Estimates are under consideration by the Cabinet?

Sir W. de FRECE: 30.
asked the Prime Minister what steps have been taken to effect economies in national expenditure?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Estimates for 1926–27 are under consideration by His Majesty's Government with a view to effecting all possible economies, but I must ask hon. Members to await the publication of the Estimates, as it is not possible at the present stage to make any announcement.

Sir W. de FRECE: 41.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount and nature of the extra charges on the National Revenue which have been incurred to date since the presentation of his Budget statement last spring, and which were not provided for in that Estimate?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): I would refer my hon. Friend to the Supplementary Estimates laid before Parliament last Session to the total of £10,615,000 (House of Commons Papers 145. 150, 151 and 159 of 1925).

ELECTRIC1TY DEVELOPMENT.

Major CRAWFURD: 27.
asked the Prime Minister when he will be in a position to inform the House of the decision of the Government in regard to the electricity scheme?

The PRIME MINISTER: Although the examination of this intricate subject is proceeding, it has not yet reached such a stage as to enable me to announce the Government's proposals.

Major CRAWFURD: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that some statement on the matter will be made before the House rises at the end of the year?

The PRIME MINISTER: I hope it may be possible. I will not go beyond that at the moment.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the cause of this extraordinary delay, seeing that months ago he said he felt almost sure that he would be in a position to make a statement before the House rose for the last Recess?

The PRIME MINISTER: The extraordinary delay is due to the extraordinary complexity of the subject.

GOVERNMENT BILLS.

Commander BELLAIRS: 28.
asked the Prime Minister what measures mentioned in the King's Speech it is not intended to proceed with.

The PRIME MINISTER: The only Measures in the Speech from the Throne which it will be impossible, owing to the pressure on Parliamentary time, to carry through during the present Session are the following:
The Merchandise Marks (Imported Agricultural Produce) Bill.
Bills to amend the Factory and Workshop Acts and the law with regard to the use of road vehicles.
If is proposed to introduce a Bill dealing with rating for Scotland, but I see no prospect of time being found for its discussion this Session.

Viscountess ASTOR: Does that answer mean that the Factory Acts Amendment Bill is dropped?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is dropped for this Session.

Viscountess ASTOR: Oh!

FIGHTING SERVICES (ENTRANTS PAY).

Mr. FENBY: 31.
asked the Prime Minister what decision has been arrived at as to payment of the new entrants to the Army, Navy and Air Force?

The PRIME MINISTER: The new rates of pay for new entrants to the Army, Navy and Air Force have already been published. They are to be found in Army Orders 366 and 367, Admiralty Fleet Orders 2858 and 2859 and Air Ministry Weekly Orders 604 and 605, respectively, copies of which I am sending to the hon. Member.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this new system initiated by the Government of paying men who are working side by side different rates of pay is bound to produce most harmful results and would not be tolerated by any trade union?.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

OFFICERS' MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE.

Major HORE-BELISHA: 33.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government is prepared to reopen the consideration of the claim of naval officers for marriage allowances?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very great hardship existing in the families of naval officers; and can he hold out any hope that this question will be reconsidered in the lifetime of the present Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: The matter was considered with very great care.

Viscountess ASTOR: Is this final?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.

PEMBROKE DOCKYARD.

Major PRICE: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether the Government are prepared to grant, at an early date, time for a discussion on their decision to discontinue the use of Pembroke as an active Naval dockyard and to reduce it to a care and maintenance basis.

The PRIME MINISTER: It is too early at the moment to say whether an opportunity can be found for this discussion.

Major PRICE: Can the Prime Minister say whether discharges will be discontinued until the House has had an opportunity of discussing the matter?

The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. Friend must see that on the first day of the meeting of Parliament the answer I have given is the only one possible. There will be a number of subjects which can be debated, and a few days must elapse before the Government have had time to see how far they will be able to gratify the wishes of Members.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Would the right hon. Gentleman say now exactly what the position of the Government is, seeing that it has been varied once or twice during the Recess?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid that would lead to a speech. The matter has been published very fully, and if the hon. Member desires any further information, I would suggest that he put down a question to the First Lord of the Admiralty.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is it a fact that the Government have come to a definite decision?

Mr. STEPHEN: Could the Prime Minister not arrange to hold up these discharges for a few days, until he is able to make a definite decision. Cannot I have an answer to my question? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer!"]

The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Member, when he has been longer in the House, will realise that it is not unusual to wait for two or three questions on the same subject in order that a Minister may reply to them together and save time. My answer to the question he has just asked has been made.

Captain GARRO-JONES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what he considers is the value of our principle of representative government if a decision may be reached on such an important subject—

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Hurd. [See col. 11—Locarno Pact—Mr. Hurd's private notice. Question.]

FIGHTING SERVICES (EXPENDITURE).

Captain GARRO-JONES: 34.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Economy Committee presided over by Lord Chalmers has yet made any recommenda-
tions; and, if not, whether he can state what progress has been made in their inquiries?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have received a communication from Lord Colwyn's Committee on the reduction of expenditure in the fighting services, which indicates that the Committee are actively engaged on their task. I am unable to make any further statement for the moment.

Commander O. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Will the full report of this Committee be published?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think so. It is a report to the Government.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Is this Committee empowered to propose any further reduction in the pay of the fighting services?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think that has been settled.

BOOTLE EDUCATION COMMITTEE (RELIGIOUS TEACHING).

Colonel DAY: 35.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he contemplates taking any action following the recent decision of the Bootle Education Committee, who have decided to make regulations that will not allow teachers any latitude in so far as religious teaching is concerned; and whether the printed regulations of the Bootle Council will be subject to his revision before such instruction operates?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD OF EDUCATION (Duchess of Atholl): The decision referred to by the hon. and gallant Member has not been communicated by the Authority to my Department, nor is my right hon. Friend aware of any reason why it should have been. He does not propose to take any action.

IRISH FREE STATE (BRITISH CLAIM).

Mr. CLARRY: 3.
for
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is now in a position
to make a statement as to the claim of the British Government under Article 5 of the Irish Treaty?

Mr. AMERY: I am not in a position at present to add anything to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend on 6th July last.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRAQ.

NORTHERN FRONTIER.

Mr. FENBY: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make any statement as to the present position of the Mosul frontier dispute?

Mr. AMERY: The question of the northern frontier of Iraq has been before the Council of the League of Nations, which, as the hon. Member is probably aware, referred certain judicial points to the Permanent Court of International Justice at The Hague. The Permanent Court has not yet given a decision on the points referred to it, but it is hoped that the decision will he given before the end of the present month so that the Council of the League of Nations may resume its consideration of the question early in December.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Have the Government abandoned the intention of giving up this country by 1928?

Mr. AMERY: We are not abandoning anything.

BRITISH OBLIGATIONS.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: by Private Notice
asked the Prime Minister if he will state what is the earliest date at which it is open to Great Britain to divest itself of responsibility for the Government of Iraq under the terms of the mandate it holds from the League of Nations?

The PRIME MINISTER: The terms governing the responsibility of Great Britain in respect of Iraq were defined by the Decision of the Council of the League of Nations of the 27th September, 1924, the text of which was presented to Parliament as Command Paper 2317 in January last. Article 6 of that Decision provides that, in the event of Iraq being admitted to the League of Nations, the obligations assumed by His Majesty's Government will terminate. That is the
juridical position as it stands to-day. As my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, important questions relating to Iraq, the decision of which must necessarily influence the policy of the Government, are now before the Council of the League of Nations. In the circumstances, I am unable to make any precise statement as to the date upon which Article 6 will become operative.

Sir F. HALL: Then may I ask whether we are to understand that this country is not to be committed to a policy of practically policing, and being responsible for Iraq for 25 years after the completion of the present undertaking?

The PRIME MINISTER: That matter has been considered, and will be considered by the Government, and, of course, this House will have an opportunity of expressing its views on the matter.

Mr. THOMAS: Are there any new circumstances arising in connection with Iraq that would warrant a departure from the Prime Minister's previously expressed views as to the evacuation of Iraq in three years?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, I should say not, but, at the same time, it must be obvious, I think, to the House, that it is not very convenient to have leading questions on this matter put when the matter is sub judice, and upon the result we shall have to form our policy.

Captain BENN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those considerations did not preclude the Colonial Secretary from expressing his opinion?

Mr. N. MACLEAN: Is this House to understand, that while the League of Nations is discussing any question in which this country is interested, we in this House are precluded from expressing a protest or any opinion on the matter?

Mr. J. JONES: If we are going to be muzzled, he has got to be muzzled, too.

CORPORATION PROFITS TAX.

Mr. CLARRY: 37.
for
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amounts of arrears of Corporation Profits Tax now outstanding?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The approximate amount of Corporation Profits Tax in assessment (less arrears shown due to be remitted) at 31st October, 1925, was £13,500,000. The sum ultimately to be received by the Exchequer is. however, likely to fall substantially short of this figure.

Mr. W. THORNE: What means is the right hon. Gentleman taking to obtain this money?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Every means which can suggest itself to the ingenuity of the Department, which is not usually accused of lacking in that respect.

Mr. THORNE: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend taking any legal action to enforce these payments?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The rights of the Crown will be enforced, so far as practicable, by whatever procedure may be necessary.

GERMAN REPARATION.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: 38.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount, since 1st April, 1925, paid by Germany for Reparations; and what amount Great Britain has received?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The total amounts received during the seven months from 1st April, 1925, by the Agent-General for Reparation Payments in respect of the Dawes annuities (which cover all Allied claims against Germany arising out of the Peace Treaty, whether for reparations of otherwise) was 575,006,857 gold marks (£28,750,000). Of this, the total net amount paid by the Agent-General to or for the account of the British Empire was 95,919,201 gold marks (£4,796,000). Out of this amount about £3,000,000 represents receipts by the United Kingdom on account of reparation, the balance representing receipts on account of the Army of Occupation and Belgian war debt.

Sir F. WISE: Could the right hon. Gentleman state what the expenses were in regard to collecting this money?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I should require notice of that question.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman quite satisfied now that the statements he made in Dundee at the
election in 1918 were absolutely false as to the amount that would be obtained from reparation?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The statements which I made in Dundee at that election have been singularly vindicated by the facts. The figure which I took it we should press for was £2,000,000,000 sterling.

Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: What proportion, if any, of this money has been set aside to compensate the seamen for their sufferings in the War?

TRADE FACILITIES ACT.

Sir F. WISE: 39.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount guaranteed under the Trade Facilities Act; and what is the loss to date?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The total amount covered by the guarantees which the Treasury has expressed its willingness to give stood on the 30th September, allowing for schemes withdrawn, at £53,827,241, and the loss at £13,803.

CIVIL SERVANTS (WAR BONUS).

Mr. SHORT: 42.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the total number of civil servants who joined the Forces during the War without permission, and who are now excluded from the provisions of the Sutton judgment?

Mr. McNEILL: I assume the hon. Member intends to refer to the Pidduck and other judgments of the Court of Appeal following the Sutton judgment. I am afraid that at this distance of time it is impossible to ascertain how many civil servants joined the Forces during the War without permission and are outside the provisions of those judgments, but the number would doubtless run into several hundreds.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Will the light hon. Gentleman undertake to consider any claims that men within this category have to make and be just enough to bring them within the scope of the judgments?

Mr. McNEILL: I have said that I could not ascertain how many there are.

COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA.

Mr. DIXEY: 36.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he proposes to introduce legislation to give him further powers to enable him to deal more strictly with Communist propaganda?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): The question is under consideration, but I am not at present in a position to make any statement on the subject.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman himself, standing at that Box, stated last year, or last Session, that Communist propaganda was not illegal in this country?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It depends entirely on how it is carried out.

Mr. LANSBURY: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that I put a specific question to him, and he answered it quite specifically that it was not illegal to propagate Communism?

Mr. WALLHEAD: Could not the right hon. Gentleman revert to about 1697 to find another Act instead of introducing anything new?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: So far as the first question is concerned, it entirely depends upon what particular Communist doctrines are propagated. I have often heard the hon. Member say he was not a Communist, but at times I think he is.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman, in answer to the question: "Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the advocacy of Communism is illegal," replied: "Obviously, if it had been, the hon. Member might find himself in custody"? This is a matter of very great importance, [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"] May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the very great importance of this question, whether he considers it quite fair to give a specific answer in that manner and then to prosecute people because they have been propagating Socialism?

Mr. J. JONES: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies—

Mr. SPEAKER: This is leading to an argument, which we cannot pursue at this stage.

FASCIST SOCIETIES.

Mr. LANSBURY: by Private Notice
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the existence of certain Fascist and other organisations and societies organised as military armed forces similar to that known as the Ulster Volunteer Army which was established in Ireland during the years 1913–14 and supported by leading statesmen in this country; and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these Fascist and quasi-military bodies meet regularly for drill and other military exercise; that they inarch through the streets armed, attend meetings armed, and in a general manner act provocatively toward all who hold opinions different from their own; and has his attention been called to the fact that on 17th October a van carrying parcels of that day's issue of the "Daily Herald" was held up in the City of London by armed men, members of the British Fascisti, and that on the occasion when these men were before the City Justices, the learned Counsel, acting on behalf of the Public Prosecutor, withdrew the serious charges against the defendants and proceeded only to charge them with committing a breach of the peace; and will he inform the House on whose instructions the learned Counsel or Public Prosecutor acted; and, further, will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether instructions have been issued to the police that they may permit, without interference, the drilling and aiming of citizens by any groups of individuals or organisations who may deem it right to organise themselves into a volunteer army?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am aware of the existence of certain Fascist and similar organisations, and of the fact that certain members have, from time to time, engaged in activities which everyone must deplore, but I have no information that they meet regularly for drill and other military exercises, or that they march through the streets or attend meetings bearing arms. Unauthorised meetings of persons for the purpose of being trained or of practising military exercises are prohibted by law, and no instructions have been issued to the police
of the nature suggested in the last part of the question. The police are aware of their duty, and the law will be enforced without discrimination against any persons who infringe it.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: May we ask when the law is going to be enforced?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I gave instructions some three or four weeks ago that equal justice should be meted out to all parties, and, on a suitable case being found, prosecution will be taken at once.

Mr. THURTLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what kind of justice was being administered before three or four weeks ago?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Justice was being administered in the ordinary way.

HON. MEMBERS: Why did you send out the instructions, then?

Mr. BECKETT: May I ask if the same steps are being taken to find out what the Fascisti are doing as to find out what the Communists are doing?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: My attention was called to the action of some of the Fascisti, and my instructions were that the same proceedings should be taken against them as against anybody else who broke the peace.

Mr. J. JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a young man about 18 years of age was carried out of a Conservative Club in the North of London, wounded during revolver practice? Evidently he had not been properly taught.

Mr. THOMAS: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the wide dissatisfaction amongst the public with the action taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions in connection with the case of the four National Fascists who admitted taking possession by force of a "Daily Herald" motor van and further with damaging the van; and whether in view of the serious danger that such action may destroy public confidence in the impartial administration of Justice he can give the House any explanation regarding the action of the Director of Public Prosecutions in this case?

The PRIME MINISTER: Notice of this question was only received by me about noon to-day, and as my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General is engaged on public duties elsewhere, I have not had an opportunity of discussing the matter with him. I should be much obliged, therefore, if my right hon. Friend would be good enough to postpone his question until to-morrow.

Mr. THOMAS: Obviously, one must accede to such a request, which I quite appreciate, but I would ask in advance whether, in the absence of the Attorney-General, the Prime Minister will keep in mind, that whatever may be the answer conveyed by the Attorney-General, the feeling—and in my opinion the right feeling—of indignation in the country is such— Interruption]—because nothing would be so dangerous as the people of this country losing confidence in justice —he will give an opportunity for a full discussion of this question in this House?

Captain BENN: May I ask the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the remarks of the Magistrate in this case when he appeared to recommend that the prisoners should join the police force?

Mr. SPEAKER: That had better follow the main question to-morrow.

Mr. MacDONALD: May I ask you, Sir, on a matter of ruling, supposing we desire to take any action on account of the nature of the answer to be given to my right hon. Friend's question, will you then rule that by raising it in this way to-day, our rights have not been forfeited of asking you to give us, say, the Adjournment of the House?

Mr. SPEAKER: In view of the Prime Minister's answer deferring the question, until to-morrow, I think any rights there may be should be equally good to-morrow.

DAMASCUS.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: by Private Notice
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any account from His Britannic Majesty's Consul in Syria as to the recent affairs in Damascus, and can he give the House any information as to the casualties due to the bombardment, losses suffered by
British subjects, and the allegation that the panic among the Europeans was due to the action or inaction of the Consul?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am in communication with the French Government on this subject, and trust that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will allow me to defer an answer to his question until I have received their reply.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I take it that the right hon. Gentleman has received no report from the Consul whom we have there?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am in frequent communication with the Consul.

Oral Answers to Questions — SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES.

LEGISLATION THIS SESSION.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: (by Private Notice) asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give a list of industries which have applied for import duties under the provisions of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, indicating applications successful, unsuccessful, and still under consideration?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I presume the hon. Member is referring to the new safeguarding of industries procedure which has been in operation since the early part of this year. Ten applications have been referred by the Board of Trade for enquiry by a committee. The reports of the inquiries in regard to lace and embroidery and to superphosphates were published some time ago, and a duty was imposed upon lace and embroidery in the last Finance Act. Inquiries are proceeding in regard to wrapping and packing paper, brooms and brushes, enamelled hollow-ware, cutlery, and worsted tissues. The committees on leather and fabric gloves and glove fabric, on gas mantles and on aluminium hollow-ware, have reported, but, as I stated on the 28th July, in reply to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn), the Government do not consider that it would be in the public interest to publish the results of inquiries, whether in favour of a duty or not, until such time as they are prepared to introduce legislation in any case where it is decided to propose a duty to Parliament.
For the reasons which I have already given in this House, I think it is in the
general interest that the practice prevailing under the Safeguarding of Industries Act should be adhered to, and that information should not be given with regard to applications unless and until they are referred to a committee for inquiry.

Captain BENN: Is it intended to introduce legislation in this part of the Session to carry out the Reports which have been approved by the Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir.

Captain W. SHAW: Might I ask the Minister if he is aware that the delay that has taken place between whatever decision has been arrived at by the Committee and the legislation necessary to enforce that is actually allowing the destruction of the fabric glove trade by means of a large import into this country, whereby any good effect will be destroyed?

Mr. HARRIS: Am I to understand that when Reports are in favour of the duty they are to be published, and if they are not in favour they are not to be published?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not propose until legislation is introduced to issue any Reports, otherwise that would give the case away.

Mr. HARRIS: Am I. to understand that the Minister is willing to publish favourable but not unfavourable Reports?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: When the time for legislation comes, all relevant Reports will be published, whether favourable or unfavourable. I decline, however, to publish one set of Reports and not another.

CONVERSION LOAN.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: (by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give the figure representing the total amount of money saved to the Imperial Treasury as a result of the series of offers of Conversion Loan made since His Majesty's Government came into office?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The issues of 3½ Conversion Loan since the present Government came into office have amounted to 129,660,000. The proceeds of £109,647,562 of this stock
have been applied in redeeming Exchequer Bonds and National War Bonds, with a resultant saving in interest of £775,650 a year. The proceeds of the balance of the stock are being used to redeem floating debt. The total saving by conversions of all kinds in the same period has been about £ 1,800,000 per annum.

Mr. DALTON: What is the addition to the capital value of the debt?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I could not give the figures without proper notice. Of course, time as well as amount has to be taken into consideration.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is this another form of Capital Levy?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would it not be misleading to give these figures as saving which has been achieved when the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the capital liabilities have been increased, and, on redemption, will involve this country in large additional expenditure?

Mr. CHURCHILL: As to the extent to which capital liabilities have been increased, it is quite impossible for me to discuss that matter at Question time. No doubt, opportunties will occur in which the subject can be gone into, but, as I say, in the present value of capital liabilities you must take into account the factor of time as well as the factor of money.

Mr. THURTLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take care to see that the holders of this War Loan are treated with generosity?

Mr. CHURCHILL: They will be treated with justice and with a scrupulous regard to the fulfilment of public pledges.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: Keep your promises to the ex-service men and the unemployed.

INTER-ALLED DEBTS.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: (by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the resignation of M. Caillaux, late Foreign Minister of France, will prejudice the settlement recently arrived at between this country and France in regard to war debt.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The late French Government have accepted in principle the arrangement that the French war debt to this country should be discharged by annuities averaging £12,500,000 a year within a period of 62 years, subject to the further discussion of various important outstanding points. The resignation of M. Caillaux has inevitably delayed the further discussion of these outstanding points, but does not affect the agreement in principle already reached.

Mr. W. THORNE: Will the amount of money paid in the shape of principal and interest be used for the purpose of reducing the National Debt?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It will go into the general funds of this country and will be available for meeting the general expenditure.

Mr. J. JONES: How does the right hon. Gentleman account for the report which has appeared in the Press that France has been able to make better arrangements with the United States in regard to their war debt than we have been able to make?

Mr. MACLEAN: Is not this repayment of the capital debt, and ought it not to be placed against the repayment of principal and not against revenue?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Really, I think it would be difficult to do justice to these extremely complicated and interesting financial points at Question time. They are the subjects for debate.

Mr. MACLEAN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that we have already had instances of this kind happening in the House, where money for the repayment of capital expenditure has been placed to revenue account and spent by the Government?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for argument.

HOUSES (EXPORT).

Captain GEE: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Agriculture whether in view of the serious allegations contained in the Report of the Departmental Committee on the export of horses, he has any statement to make to
this House now or at an early date and if not, is it his intention to institute proceedings against the R.S.P.C.A. for obtaining large sums of money by false pretences?

Sir H. BARNSTON: I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend is at present considering the Report in question, and is not yet in a position to indicate what action he may take in the matter. I would point out, however, that, as regards the suggestion in the last part, the public can form their own conclusions from the Report and evidence which have been published.

Captain GEE: I beg to give notice that I shall call attention to this subject on the Adjournment at an early date.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the report on which the public can make up its mind can only be obtained at the price of thirty shillings—I should say the evidence, not the Report?

Sir H. BARNSTON: The Report can be obtained cheaper than that.

Mr. LANSBURY: Yes, but not the evidence!

Colonel DAY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the Society has a very good case to put in opposition to the allegations to which the hon. Member has referred?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he will be good enough to tell us what business he proposes to take after to-morrow?

The PRIME MINISTER: On Wednesday the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will make a statement on the Locarno Pact.
Thursday: Tithe Bill, Report and Third Reading; and, if time allows, other Orders on the Paper.
The business for Friday will be announced later.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether the Debate on Wednesday will allow us the opportunity for a Vote?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am perfectly ready, of course, to provide an oppor-
tunity for a Vote, but I am in communication with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition as to the exact form which the discussion should take.

Mr. THURTLE: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman has already given the House an undertaking that there will be an opportunity for the House to record its opinion on this projected Pact?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Am I not acting with only the usual courtesy if I say that I am in communication with the Leader of the Opposition as to the form of Motion, if any?

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

ARNOLD ERNEST TOWNEND, Esquire, for the Borough of Stockport.

NEW WRITS ISSUED DURING ADJOURNMENT.

Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that he had issued Warrants for New Writs during the Adjournment—

For the Borough of Stockport, in the room of William Greenwood, Esquire, deceased.

For the County of Galloway, in the room of Vice-Admiral Sir Arthur John Henniker-Hughan, Baronet, C.B., deceased.

For the County of West Suffolk (Bury St. Edmund's Division), in the room of the right hon. Walter Edward Guinness, D.S.O. (Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries).

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS.

The PRIME MINISTER: I beg to move—
That during the remainder of the Session—

(1) Government Business do have precedence;
(2) At the conclusion of Government Business or of Proceedings made in pursuance of any Act of Parliament requiring any Order, Rule, or Regulation to be laid before the House of Commons, which shall be taken immediately after Government Business, Mr. Speaker shall propose the Question, That this
34
House do now adjourn, and, if that Question shall not have been agreed to, Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House, without Question put, not later than one hour after the conclusion of Government Business, if that Business has been concluded before 10.30 p.m., but, if that Business has not been so concluded, not later than 11.30 p.m.;
(3) If the day be a Friday the House, unless it otherwise resolves, shall at its rising stand adjourned until the following Monday."

The Motion which stands in my name is one which, I am afraid, has been a hardy annual on our Order Paper for a great many years. The reason that it appears to-day—this for the benefit of those who have not been Members of the House very long—arises from this fact, that when the arrangement of public business was last settled, in the year 1902, it was decided, under Sub-section (d) of No. 4 of the Standing Orders that
After Whitsuntide, until Michaelmas, Government business shall have precedence.
and so forth. When we looked this morning at the Blue Paper which regulates our proceedings, we saw that in addition to the business of to-day it contained, as it were, the minutes of the Debate on the last day we sat, namely, 7th August. The last business done on that day was to adjourn the House at its rising then until to-day; so that in essence and in fact this is the same Session as was in existence then; but owing to the word "Michaelms," which was put in in 1902, there is some doubt lest, if no Motion of this kind be passed, the days allocated to private Members in the earlier part of our business year, Tuesdays and Wednesdays, might be claimed. As these Sessions in the Autumn are, and always have been, held for the sole object of completing business begun in the earlier part of the year, it is obvious that it is necessary— it was so for the Labour Government last year, as it was for each Government in preceding years—to secure the whole of the time for Government business, with a view to rising at a proper time before Christmas. All Governments go through the same course of taking just about as long as they estimate will be necessary for the business which has to be passed to enable the House to rise in time for the holidays at Christmas. For the benefit of the younger Members amongst us, I would remind the House that whatever privileges attach to Members of the House in moving the Adjournment, subject to the
discretion of Mr. Speaker, who is the arbiter in these matters, remain intact, as does the privilege of raising any question on the Adjourment, and of moving addresses praying for the amendment of regulations made in pursuance of authority. The only right private Members have not had which they have had in the earlier part of a Session is the right of initiating discussions on Motions selected by ballot on Tuesday and Wednesday evenings. I hope that, in order to enable us to proceed with the business which has been put down, the House will accept this Motion, as it did last year, and as it has done in many previous years, after a Debate conducted within as narrow limits as possible.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: It is perfectly true, as the Prime Minister has reminded us, that this Resolution has become a hardy annual, but I think that is all the more reason why it should be challenged. The right hon. Gentleman has also reminded us that there was no provision made in the Order for anything that should happen after Michaelmas, but quite obviously the intention of the House at the time was to make no provision for an Autumn Session, under the assumption that the business of the House would be done in the time contemplated by the Order. As a matter of fact, we have found that Michaelmas comes and we find our work undone, and therefore it has been our experience that an Autumn Session has been necessary for completing the work already begun. If it was that business that the Prime Minister was asking us to do in this Autumn Session, so far as I am concerned I would not resist this Resolution; but that is not the situation at all.
There are two considerations which have to be taken into account here. The first is that during the regular period of the sittings of the House the rule lays down quite clearly—whether adequately or inadequately perhaps depends upon whether you sit on one side of this House or the other—that there are certain rights for private Members on Tuesdays and Wednesdays up to a certain time, and, what is more important, it gives us an opportunity week by week in connection with Supply to raise any subject which has become important during the sittings of the House. Therefore, if this Autumn
Session is a regular continuation of our business, then the Government must find an opportunity for raising some of the most important questions that have matured for discussion since last we met. We have been told that the Government are not going to continue their ordinary work, and that we are going to be given fresh work to do. We are told to-day that we are going to have a Finance Bill which is to carry out some extension of the Safeguarding of Industries Act which has now lapsed. I want to say perfectly clearly and candidly here and now, so that there need be no mistake about it, that we shall oppose that measure on every occasion and on every opportunity, and we shall not facilitate its passage through this House in any way. That being the case, the Government will have to take the time to-night in the Division Lobbies and not by the consent of the House.
My next point is, what are the Government going to do with their time, although I think an Autumn Session should be properly provided for by the Rules of the House? So far as this threatened Bill is concerned we regard it as an exceedingly important matter of principle which ought not to be discussed and settled in an Autumn Session. We also regard it as being a violation of all the pledges given to the country by the Government and a violation of the pledge given that if this Government had a majority they would not proceed to impose Protection on the country. They are now doing that. But leaving that on one side, I have here a list of subjects which I think the Prime Minister will agree is an important list of subjects which ought to be discussed.
The Locarno Pact is going to be discussed the day after to-morrow. With regard to that Pact, I should like to reinforce a question which was put earlier as to when we are to have the papers about the Dominions. Surely before Wednesday next we ought to know the opinion of the Dominions. We shall certainly have a great deal to say about that question on Wednesday in regard to this new policy relating to the settlement of international affairs without the consent and knowledge of the Dominions, and then turning round to the Dominions and saving: "If you agree, after we have signed, to come in and take over your own obli-
gations, we have no objection." The House ought not to be asked to pronounce any opinion upon that matter until we have the papers and the correspondence with the Dominions fully placed before us, and until we have had time to consider them.
Then there is the question of Mosul, which has been left in a very unsatisfactory position. Are we committed to the right hon. Gentleman's speech at Geneva, or are we really in the position that, before the House has bad an opportunity of even being told about a change of the policy that has hitherto been supported by the right hon. Gentleman and his party and by us, that policy has already been changed without any information being given to us, to say nothing of it not having received our sanction? We must have an opportunity during this part of the Session to find out how the country stands with reference to the Mosul question, which also involves the question of Iraq. Are we going to continue to guarantee Iraq, and what is our position on this question with regard to the League of Nations? We cannot possibly separate for the Christmas holidays until we have had an opportunity of considering that subject.
4.0 P.M.
There is another subject. The House really must have an opportunity of discussing the unemployment problem. We want to know about those wonderful figures which are being produced every Wednesday morning. Do they or do they not indicate, not merely a lowering in unemployment figures, but an improvement in the condition of unemployment, which are two totally different things, one nut-meaning the same as the other? Is trade really better and absorbing more of our people? Really, we must have an opportunity of discussing those subjects, and, in connection with them, we must have an opportunity of considering the question of Poor Law administration. There is another question which was raised from below the Gangway on the opposite side of the House to-day, the question of dockyard policy. Surely, this House is going to have an opportunity of discussing that matter. We must know what the Government policy is— how far it is going to keep its obligations to the municipalities of Rosyth and Dunfermline—and with regard to Pembroke
Dock. What is its policy with regard to the discharged workers, and so on? We would not perform our duty if we did not insist upon getting from the Government a full statement upon those very important questions.
Then there is another question. It may be a small question, but I can assure the Prime Minister that it is one of those little things that seem to touch moral interests, and on that account may loom very large. We have all been distressed about statements about Kadaver factories and so, restarted on account of a reported or misreported speech of an hon. Member of this House in New York. I do not think the matter can rest where it is, and I would beg the Prime Minister during the next day or two to apply his mind to considering whether it is not possible to make some statement that will settle this matter for good and all. I can assure him the newspaper fuss that was made about it on the other side of the Channel created something that was much deeper than mere interest. We owe it to ourselves to make our Government official position perfectly clear, and some opportunity ought to be given in order to raise that question.
There is the whole question of the administration of justice. By hook or by crook that has got to be discussed, not only the question mentioned by my right hon. Friend to-day—the action of the Public Prosecutor, which may or may not be quite accurate from the legal point of view—I do not know, I will wait and hear the statement—but something much more than that. We do not believe that the law has been equitably applied between reactionary leaders and forces and, what at any rate the people call themselves, "progressive leaders of thought." I do not share that view of theirs at all. Nevertheless, whether one agrees with them or not, it is of the most critical importance to-day that there should be general confidence in the administration of justice in this country. There is a prosecution going on to-day, and as soon as it is over it will have to be discussed, not in defence of what these gentlemen have said or have not said, but from the constitutional point of view, which surely is perfectly clear—that there should be no criminal prosecution in this country against an expression of opinion. We must ask the Government to provide opportunities for that discussion.
There is one other matter. The question of the administration of war pensions again has become the subject of a great deal of unsettlement and disappointment. There is a whole class of cases where pensions are refused, on the ground that the disability upon which the pensions were claimed has been decided not to have arisen on account of war experience. We ought to have an opportunity of discussing these things. Then it is just possible that a situation may arise—we shall certainly not ask it on our own initiative—but the circumstances may arise—when someone will have to ask for a further discussion upon the coal situation, and we ought to keep our hands free for that; and there may be some other unforeseen things. I mention those matters, because they are all big things, all pressing things, and they are matters which, if we were now meeting in February, we could bring up in the ordinary way by Resolution, or through balloting for Bills, or, above all, through Supply. Surely the Government will never expect us to sit here five or six weeks perhaps, and have no very clear understanding come to between themselves and us regarding the raising of these largo questions, which for the benefit of the House of Commons itself ought to be discussed and thoroughly thrashed out.
I am afraid it will be impossible for me to help to give the Government the Resolution this time on account of this new legislation, to which I very strongly object on principle and not merely as a matter of expediency. An Autumn Session never contemplated in the Rules of the House ought not to be used for the introduction of new business. An Autumn Session ought to be used only for the finishing of business that is begun before the Adjournment, but which, owing to the pressure of debates and so on, cannot be finished before August. We have to-day had notice that new legislation is going to be brought forward, and on that account I cannot give this Resolution my vote. But I hope, on the second group of considerations, that we shall have some satisfactory assurance, which will enable us to raise those very important questions on the Floor of the House.

Sir ALFRED MOND: The right hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the
House has covered a good deal of the ground which necessarily has to be covered by anyone taking part in these discussions. I do not propose to re-cover all of it, but I would like to say, speaking for those I am representing this afternoon, that, although of course the Prime Minister has put forward a plea to which we have all become accustomed, namely, that the Government take all the time of the House in an Autumn Session, it clearly ought not to be regarded as axiomatic or as a precedent which has never been and should never be broken. On the present occasion, we have more important questions to be discussed than usually arise in the interval since the Adjournement, and further we have promised, as the leader of the Opposition has rightly pointed out, a new Finance Bill of a most acutely controversial character which certainly will be opposed from these benches to the utmost of our ability. This is not the moment to make any pronouncement of policy, but I must say that it seems to me that, if legislation which was intended to deal with large and important interests, is really to-day being used to assist minute and microscopic industries against all principles of finance, and against the pledges given by the Prime Minister, then, although the Government no doubt will adhere to their Motion, there are a number of questions of great public interest for which time must be found.
If the Prime Minister will give me his attention for one moment, I would like to suggest to him that the Government should find time for the discussion of the important question of inter-Allied debts. The position of our debts, money owing to us both from France and Italy, appears obscure; in fact, is entirely in the air. The Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day rightly pointed out that it is utterly impossible to deal with problems of this kind across the Floor of the House at Question Time, but we do want to know what to-day is the position of the French debt to us. How far was it or is it or is it not contingent on the settlement of the French debt to America? We should also like to know how it is that, while Italy owes us more money than it does the United States, a settlement has been arrived at with the United States, though, as far as we know, no bargain has even been suggested or is under consideration regarding the money
that Italy owes to us. These questions should not merely be considered, but should be dealt with in a much more serious spirit than I think they have been dealt with by the British Government. The taxpayer of this country should not be asked to be for ever a kind of philanthropist to whom no good ever comes, nor should everybody else's debts be settled before ours and England be the only country whose debts are never paid. In view of the present financial position and the present state of the Budget it seems to me important that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government should have an opportunity of stating our position in this matter.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition mentioned the question of the administration of justice. He said we want an inquiry, and some time allowed during this period of the Session. Last year the party with which I am connected moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the late Labour Government's conduct of the administration of justice. We have never had that committee. We should like to have it and any other committee, if an inquiry is going to be held. I was rather interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman's violent denunciation of what has been done by Gentlemen on that Front Bench when we contrast the position which in our memory he occupied not so long ago with the position of the Government, I will not say, on a similar matter. [Interruption.]

Mr. SPEAKER: We must not mak9 this Motion an opportunity for going into the merits of any of these questions. It will not be in order on this occasion to do more than indicate the questions for the discussion of which time is desired.

Sir A. MOND: I was endeavouring to do that when I was interrupted, and led away from the few remarks which I was trying to address to the House. The question of the dockyards, especially Pembroke, in which many of us are interested, is not a party question, and we think some opportunity should be pro vided for placing it more fully and adequately before this House than seems to have been done in the Press. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition referred to a number of other questions, and I do not wish to cover the
ground again. All I would say is that, seeing that the time for which the House is going to sit before Christmas is sorely inadequate to the number of subjects to be discussed, it seems a pity, in view of the number and importance of those subjects, that the House was not called together at a somewhat earlier date, so that we might have had time in which to satisfy the desire, not merely of members of this House but of the country, that these important questions should be adequately dealt with.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: I would like some information regarding the statement made by the Prime Minister that after Michaelmas the time which private Members would have would be Tuesday and Wednesday afternoons. Is it not stated in the Manual of Procedure that the time which private Members will have after that date is Wednesday afternoons and Fridays, which come back to the private-Members if an Autumn Session is held? This Resolution which has been put forward by the Government proposes to take up for the Government the whole of the time of the House, and to cut off from the private Members what has been in the past the time which they legitimately had, to bring up questions for discussion which either affected their constituents or might affect some particular body of opinion in the country with which they were associated. I would like to know, when the Prime Minister brings in this new legislation, whether he intends also to allow or permit the Minister of Labour to continue the introduction of what is practically new legislation, by the issue of Regulations to the Employment Exchanges in the country—Regulations which have the effect of Acts of Parliament, and cut off from receiving benefit individuals who are insured persons and who, by reason of the Insurance Acts, are entitled to receive benefit either on behalf of themselves or of their dependants? That is one thing, at least, which T submit, above all others, ought to be discussed during this Autumn Session—the methods by which the Minister of Labour is practically robbing insured persons of insurance benefit.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): Mr. Speaker has already ruled that it will not be in order to go into the merits of questions which hon. Members
may desire to raise. It will be in order to enumerate them, but it will not be in order to go into their merits.

Mr. MACLEAN: I accept that, and I thought I was not going into the merits, but was making a general statement as to what T considered to be the effects of the merits of these questions.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I understood that the hon. Member made a charge of theft, which is clearly going into the merits.

Mr. MACLEAN: I admit that it was a charge of theft or robbery, and I withdraw that charge to-day, and will substitute it on another day when the Minister is here. I would point out. that, in my opinion, the many things affecting this country, or people in this country, to-day, which are being carried out by the officials of the Ministry of Labour, ought to be discussed by this House, because I am convinced that every Member of the House who has paid any attention to the matter in his constituency during the Recess is bound, if that constituency is an industrial one. to have been visited by scores upon scores of unemployed persons complaining about their treatment, and I am convinced that, if hon. Members are endeavouring, as I assume every Member of this House is, conscientiously to represent their constituencies, they will at least have something to say regarding the treatment of those individuals. Consequently, I submit to the Prime Minister that questions affecting the administration of the exchanges by the regulations and administrative instructions which have been sent out during the past three months by the Minister ought to be made the subject of discussion in this House during the present Autumn Session. There is also the question of pensions, which was touched upon by the Leader of the Opposition.
The Locarno Pact is evidently going to have a full-dress Debate on Wednesday, when all the experts in foreign affairs will unload their wisdom and knowledge upon this House, and the rest of us will have to sit in silence and take in the lessons they give. I want to submit that, if the Locarno Pact is going to have a full day's discussion in this House, there are things happening in this
country that are affecting the working people of this country more materially than they can be affected by any Locarno Pact, and those things ought to have at least one day's discussion also during the Autumn Session. There is one question that was in people's minds when Ministers who occupy the Government Benches got into their offices—the question of the inquiry that has been touched upon by an hon. Member below the Gangway. They went through the country protesting against what they considered to be the Labour Government's maladministration, or interference in the administration, of justice, and they carried a Motion for a Committee. They have been in office now for one year, and that Committee has never been set up, but we have the spectacle of the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General in this Government actually instructing, as far as we know—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is showing great ingenuity rather than discipline, but he really must restrain himself.

Mr. MACLEAN: It is rather difficult to keep exactly to the chalk line on this question, but I was pointing out that, while the Government came into office with the object of setting up a Committee on a certain matter, they themselves, on the surface, are evidently more grossly interfering with the administration of justice than the individuals whom they accused before.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is perfectly clear that the hon. Member is going into the merits of the question, and Mr. Speaker has ruled that that could not be done on this occasion. The hon. Member must confine himself to the question of taking the time of Private Members.

Mr. MACLEAN: Surely, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I have a right to mention some of the points that ought to be discussed by this House?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member has a perfect right to mention points that ought to be discussed, but he has not the right to discuss them.

Mr. MACLEAN: I submit, Sir, with due respect, that I am not discussing them. I am mentioning the fact that, in the public eye at the present time, the
Law Officers of the Crown are held to be responsible for certain things which have happened, and I am submitting to you, Sir, that we ought to have an opportunity of discussing these things, and that the Law Officers of the Crown and the Government itself should have an opportunity of making it clear whether the opinion of the public on what has happened is correct or not. That. I submit, is not going into the merits of the case, which I hope will be discussed and its merits gone fully into. If that be done, I am convinced that certain individuals in this House will stand in a very awkward position. I suggest, as Mr. Speaker has ruled, that the Debate must be confined to. the matters that have to be discussed, that these are questions that should be discussed—the question whether or not the Law Officers of the Crown have interfered with prosecutions in this country; the question whether or not the Minister of Labour has issued instructions and regulations to the officials of the Exchanges which are responsible for the taking away of benefits from people who are entitled to those benefits; and the question whether pensions are being taken away from dependants or from those who have served in the War. These are all questions that ought to be discussed, and this filching of time from private Members by means of this Resolution of the Government deprives them of the opportunity of raising in first-class Debate in this House questions which very materially affect their constituents. I submit that these questions ought to be brought up in the House and thoroughly discussed. Even the question of Rosyth and Pembroke, the former of which affects Scotland, are not to be discussed. The dismissals are to go on, towns are to be made bankrupt, and all the pledges which the Government made to Dunfermline are to be broken. The Prime Minister says he is very sorry, but he cannot even allow a day for discussing this very important question. I submit that that is not fair to Dunfermline, it is not fair to the Scottish Members, it is not fair to Pembroke or to the Welsh Members, and I suggest that, if the Prime Minister is going to take up this attitude with regard to questions which affect very materially many people in this country, I, for one, am not going to remain silent, but am
going to object and protest and obstruct in every possible way that the Rules contained in the Manual of Procedure enable me to do.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: I should like to ask the Prime Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury whether it is not possible to find a little time to discuss one other matter, namely, the transfer of pensions administration from Edinburgh to London. This is not in any sense a party matter; I believe that Scottish Members of all parties are opposed to this transfer. I cannot, of course, deal with the merits of it, but I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman and to the representative of the Ministry of Pensions, who is present, that, if it be only a little thing, as is alleged by the Minister, it may very well be postponed until after it has been discussed, while, if it be a great thing, the Government have no right to decide it without consultation with the Scottish Members. The tendency has been to regard the Scottish region as if it were an English county, and my experience is 1hat that is very much resented, and that an opportunity is desired by Scottish Members to bring the matter before the House. The Scottish Advisory Council, which was set up for the purpose of advising the Ministry, was never even consulted in this matter, and has registered its protest against it. Furthermore, I believe I am right in saying that 35 Members of Parliament, representing Scottish constituencies, have begged the Ministry to postpone action until a discussion has taken place. Therefore, I would beg the right hon. Gentleman, in his reply, to say that some time, even if it be only a few hours, will be found for the discussion of a matter which, regardless of party, is considered to be of vital interest by the Scottish constituencies.

Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELS: I am anxious to press that time may be allotted for the discussion of two matters which have been mentioned. One is in regard to Rosyth and Pembroke. I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) take it for granted that the Prime Minister had refused this. I am not aware that he has done so. I believe the Prime Minister led the deputation that waited upon him to believe that
any decision taken by the Cabinet would be subject to review in the House, and I do not think it is likely that the Prime Minister will go back upon that statement. It is most important that the matter should be debates because it is very seriously regarded by the people of Scotland and is of very special importance to the people of Dunfermline and district. I should also like to support the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Leith in regard to the matter of pensions administration. There is growing up a feeling in Scotland that we are very much disregarded, that Scotland is represented in every country of the world, and that Scotsmen rule every country in the world except Scotland.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member appears to be entering on a discussion on the merits of the Scottish people.

Dr. SHIELS: You will understand it is a very tempting subject. The people of Scotland will be not only very much grieved at these decision, but if time is not allowed for the discussion of them they will feel that they have been very unjustly treated.

Mr. LANSBURY: I wish to join in the protests against the Government proposition to take all the time for the rest of the Session. There are several reasons why people like me should object to it. In the first place, we come back after 12 or 13 weeks of adjournment with the object of winding up the Session so that we may adjourn again a week before Christmas for another five or six weeks. I think it is time that certainly we on these benches objected to that sort or procedure altogether. We are elected, I take it everyone is elected, to do the work of the nation. If we are unable to do it within a certain time, we ought to take the extra time that is necessary to do it. Although there have been several questions put forward that ought to be discussed, there are many others. Many of us who sit here feel that the make-believe of our proceedings in this House destroys the faith of people outside in Parliamentary Government. We come here for the purpose of remedying the grievances of the common people and most of us have precious little opportunity of bringing in any proposal or any
Bill, or moving any Resolution. Those who have been in the House much longer than I have know that as the days go by it gets less and less possible for the ordinary Members to initiate anything and that more and more we become just voting machines, whether it is a Labour, Liberal, or Tory Government that is in. It is very nearly time that ordinary Members took procedure in hand and determined that the bulk of the Members should have a voice in how business should be conducted and what business should be carried on. As matters are now settled, we are simply ciphers who are expected to vote. Hon. Members opposite will vote one way, we shall vote the other, and we shall then go and get our dinner or lunch or breakfast and the thing will be finished. It is a very important thing that the people of this country should be certain that this House is a place where grievances can be redressed and where it is not simply a game of make-believe of one Party against the other but that we are all here— I was going to say earning the money that is paid to us, but at any rate making good use of the time that is given us to do the necessary business of the nation.
Unless the House takes the opportunity during this Session of dealing very drasti[...] with the question of Russian relationships, not only our country, but all Europe, is in danger of drifting more and more into chaos and probably war. We are entitled to know from the Prime Minister why it was that no representative of the Foreign Office was on the platform to see the Minister from Russia off on Saturday. [Interruption."] The attitude of hon. Members opposite is typical of the frame of mind which I consider extremely dangerous. It is certain that if the representative in this country of the smallest country in the world was leaving he would not have been treated with the studied discourtesy—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member began his speech in perfect order, but he is now falling from his standard.

Mr. LANSBURY: I will try very hard to keep within the narrow limits which have been laid down. I think the House, certainly the Opposition, have a right to demand that before we adjourn again we
shall have an opportunity of discussing the whole question of the relationships— diplomatic, commercial, social, industrial — between this country and the great country of Russia, especially in view of what happened on Saturday. You may hate their Government, but it is a great country with a big population and great potentialities in trade and commerce. The Prime Minister went to Glasgow during the Recess and did what I think is an excellent thing for a Prime Minister to do. He used his own eyes and his own judgment as to the housing conditions in part of Glasgow, but we poor people who live in the dependency of England ought to have an opportunity of discussing whether we are not entitled to an extra subsidy for housing in view of the extra subsidy of £40 for Weir houses. I do not grudge Northern Britain getting that £40, but I am certain that in Poplar and West Ham we need it even more. I just mention that so that the Prime Minister may tell us whether we shall be treated on an equal footing with Edinburgh and Glasgow. The other subject that I think ought to be dealt with is the Poor Law. We are in a state of absolute confusion in many boroughs in London and elsewhere as to what wages we may pay our employés. There has been a decision in the Law Courts and in the House of Lords, and difficulties have arisen in interpreting it because the local government auditors give one decision and one half-year and an exactly contrary one the next half-year. Unless we are going to have an opportunity of discussing these contradictory surcharges local government is going to get into a state of absolute confusion. Then there is the whole question of Poor Law administration. The Minister of Health is interfering more and more with the administration of relief to individuals. If you go to Gateshead or to the district I represent, more and more we do not know, after one decision of the Minister, what the next decision is going to be. He is usurping powers which are not conferred upon him, and unless we have time to raise these matters they will go on and the state of local administration will become more and more confused. If the question is raised he says it is not his function to see that proper relief is paid, but apparently it is his function to lay down what in his judgment is an excess.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This is quite wide of the Motion.

Mr. LANSBURY: It is very difficult. These are questions that we are entitled to say ought to be discussed. I wanted to explain what the question actually was because I do not see how anyone can reply to me unless he knows what it is I want to have discussed.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: A Minister would not be in order in attempting to reply to the hon. Member.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Surely it is in order at any rate to point out to the Government the various subjects which require discussion in order that we may defeat this Motion which gives the Government the whole time of Parliament.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Certainly. Neither the hon. Member nor the Minister replying can go into the merits of the question. The point I think can be summarised by a tag, explicatio ne transeat in argumentum.

Mr. LANSBURY: I think we might ask you very respectfully to tell us what it means. [HON. MEMBERS: "Translate!"] The Deputy-Speaker is probably, like myself, not very good at translation. In any case I will try to keep within the limits. I will pull myself up when the Deputy-Speaker tells me. I am perfectly serious about this question of the auditors and of the interference of the Minister of Health with the administration of the Poor Law, and I think the House, and we here especially, have a real right to demand that we should have the time and therefore that this Motion should not go through. Two questions which have already been mentioned I wish to mention again. One is that of unemployment and the other the question of pensions. They are bound together and I want the House to have an opportunity of discussing the promises made to the unemployed and to the disabled men and the breaking of those promises in what I cannot help but call a very infamous manner. On Armistice Day, when everybody was out in Whitehall, there were In every workhouse in the metropolis large numbers of ex-service men. It is simply cant and humbug to go on year after year talking about ex-service men and their sacrifices, while all the time the Govern-
ment are cheese-paring in their economy at the expense of these men. The House ought to insist on an opportunity being given for discussing matters of this kind, not merely for a day, but whatever days are necessary, and we ought to compel the Government to find the necessary money for dealing with these people in a decent manner.
The question of women and unemployment will be dealt with by other hon. Members. The whole business of the Minister of Health, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Labour is to penalise the poor all the time and to make economies at the expense of the necessaries of life of the poor. It is nearly time we in this House, especially on these benches, should say that, so far as we are concerned, there is no other business of any importance, but these questions. It is because I feel that, that I am opposing this proposal of the Government to take all the time of the House. This House is elected to do the work of the nation, and not to spend one-third or one-fourth of its time on holiday. If we cannot get through our business by Christmas, let us meet immediately after Christmas, so that these questions can be discussed, and the public may know what the Government really intends to do.

Miss WILKINSON: I hope that the Prime Minister, in his reply, will tell us whether during the coming Session it will be possible to give more time to the discussion of the present policy of the Ministry of Health. I realise that in speaking on this Motion one is taking part in a very delicate Parliamentary game in attempting to keep within the rules of Order. The point which I wish to raise, is the policy which the Ministry of Health is pressing upon certain areas in respect to the calling in of arrears of poor rate. For example, we have a position in Middlesbrough which is very difficult, and I merely give it as an instance of an area which has been very badly hit by the War. The Prime Minister will remember that a deputation of Members of Parliament representing such areas waited upon him in the summer of last year. At that time he promised that a Commission would be appointed in order to go into the matter more fully. I should like to
ask the Prime Minister whether such a Commission has been appointed, and if not, whether it is proposed to appoint one, and, if so, whether time will be given during the coming Session in order that the Report of the Commission may be discussed.
Seeing that the Prime Minister proposes to take the time of private Members during the coming Session, I should like to know whether he will make that up to us by giving us some opportunity of discussing the policy of the Ministry of Health in pressing upon these particular areas for payment, considering that at the same time no relief of any kind is being given to them to meet their responsibilities. There are a large number of Members in this House, representing all parties, who are very anxious to bring to the notice of the House the very serious situation in which some of these areas are placed. Unless something can be done, those of use who represent these areas dread the coming winter.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now going into the merits of the case of the distressed areas.

Miss WILKINSON: I do not want to enter into the merits of the case. I only want to point out that the constituents, the electors in these distressed areas, will look in the business that is to come before the House in this Session for these very urgent matters in which they are interested. While the Rating and Valuation Bill, the Tithe Bill and similar Bills are to be discussed, these people will want to know why matters that are pressing so desperately on these areas are not part of the business of the House. It is because of these reasons that I ask the Prime Minister whether in the coming Session he will realise the very urgent necessity of these areas, and allow us time for discussing them.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether time can be given to discuss the present policy of the Minister of Labour with regard to unemployment. The Insurance Act that we passed last year is bearing with extraordinary hardship on certain areas where the main industries, such as in the Middlesbrough area, the icon and steel industries, are absolutely down and out, and where the bottom has practically fallen out of the areas. There you have youths under 25 who are being
definitely refused insurance benefit, and that is acting as a tremendous burden on families which are already far toe heavily hit because of low wages or because they are themselves on the dole. I submit to the Prime Minister that these questions are of more urgent Parliamentary importance than many of the Bills that are placed down for discussion, and that if he is taking the time of private Members, and making it impossible for us to discuss these matters on Tuesdays and Thursdays, as is usually done in the earlier part of the Session, he should give us some time to discuss them.
There is the question of women under the Insurance Act. We find that the Minister of Labour has completely reversed the policy of his predecessor in regard to women being refused benefit because they find it impossible to take domestic service. We find that many women are being turned off the Insurance Register, not only on that account, but on account of the new Insurance Act, which makes those who are living at home with their parents almost ineligible for benefit. In the list of Bills put down for discussion, we do not see sufficient possibility of these very urgent questions being discussed. I urge the Prime Minister to give us more time for the discussion of these questions. Although the questions which have been put down for discussion may, in his opinion, be of urgent importance, they are of far less human importance than some of the questions which we say should be part of our business during the coming Session.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I want to enforce the arguments that have been used as to the reason why this Motion should be rejected.

Sir PHILIP PILDITCH: On a point of Order. Is it permissible that the discussion on this Motion should degenerate into a Consolidated Fund Debate, ranging over all the subjects under the sun that can by any possibility be thought of?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is in order for hon. Members to put forward certain subjects and claim that such subjects should be discussed during the Session, but they must not abuse that right by proceeding to discuss the merits
of those subjects. The line is not easy to draw.

Mr. WALLHEAD: The Government decide what matters should be discussed, in addition to the unfinished Measures remaining from the previous Session, but we submit that there are other matters of importance which might more easily be discussed, and with greater value to the country, than some of the subjects that have been put down by the Government. We are to debate for a whole day the question of the Locarno Pact. If that Pact is to be used as some junior members of the Government have indicated in speeches that they have made, it may very well be that that Pact will be a curse rather than the blessing which the Government suppose it to be. It would be better to discuss matters more in accord with the actual needs of the people at the present time.
In areas of South Wales a position is rapidly developing in which local authorities are actually becoming bankrupt— a position in which they are declaring their absolute inability to maintain their unemployed, either by finding work for them or by finding maintenance for them through the Poor Law. It is an exceedingly serious matter. The City of Cardiff has taken the lead in convoking a meeting of public representatives for the purpose of discussing the abnormal burdens under which these areas are staggering at the present time. If the Government cannot find time, or if they think that these matters are not worth discussion, there are ample grounds for suggesting to the Prime Minister that private Members should not be robbed of the opportunity of introducing these matters which are of vital importance to the areas they represent. This is a question which could very well be discussed in the short time that we shall sit before we rise for Christmas. It has a bearing upon the whole question of unemployment, which is the most vital subject that this House could discuss. The Government has not given any indication that unemployment is in its mind at all. All that we gather is its eagerness to cover up the growing magnitude of this problem by juggling with figures, which lead the people to understand that the problem is decreasing in volume and intensity instead of, as some of us think, increasing in intensity.
There is the question which has been referred to by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), the relationship of this country to Russia. It is a monstrous thing that the Foreign Secretary has treated the representative of this great country in the way that he has during the past week of two. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order"!]

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This has no reference to taking up the time of the House.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I am sorry that you should say that I am wasting the time of the House on a question of international importance.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I said the hon. Member's observations had no reference to taking up the time of the House. The action of the Foreign Secretary in regard to Russia is not a question relevant to the time of the House.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Surely it has something to do with the question as to whether that action should be raised in discussion in this House.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member was not only putting the matter forward as a matter for future discussion, but was actually discussing it.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I am going to put it forward as a matter that should be discussed. We ought to discuss the conduct of the Foreign Secretary in his abominable treatment of the representative of a great nation. He has talked about the spirit of Locarno. We want to see the spirit of Locarno extended to the representatives of those countries of whose Government he does not approve. This is a matter of prime importance and cannot be ignored or neglected. So long as it is allowed to rest in its present position the graver the danger becomes. I suggest that that is a question that we ought to discuss here upon every possible occasion, and the Prime Minister ought to give us an opportunity of discussing it. To my mind the arbitrary selection by the Government of matters to be discussed, made in the way in which it has been made, is a disgrace to the records of the House, and I think that we are right in pressing this matter to a Division.

Mr. J. JONES: We are told that the fool has his eyes on the end of the earth. I am going to keep my eyes at home. I would like the Prime Minister to give us an opportunity of discussing the situation that has arisen in connection with the position of some of our local authorities. I happen to be a representative of West Ham, and I am proud of the fact. Though we have been lampooned and made an example of by those who ought to know better, I hope that anyone in the same position would try to do as well as we have done. I would like to know if there are any possibilities, in this Session, of challenging the position taken up by the Minister of Health. Those of us who Have been representatives of that locality have done our best in the interests of peace to compromise, to try and bring about a settlement before coming to a deadlock, but I would like to have an opportunity in this House of asking the Law Officers of the Crown to tell us under what statutory powers the Minister of Health has threatened us that, if we did not do as he told us, he immediately was going practically to supersede a properly constituted local authority. It is not a mere matter of West Ham, it is a great constitutional issue affecting every authority in the country.
We have just as much light to ask that all the authorities who do not agree with us to do what we do, and, if we are doing too much in the way of giving relief to people coming under our auspices, we have a right to challenge other authorities who are not giving as much as they ought to give to those coming under their control. Yet we have been singled out. I ask the Prime Minister if we shall be given an opportunity of discussing this question from the standpoint of the local authorities. Many of the large towns of Great Britain are on their beam-ends financially, and if the present situation continues for another twelve months a large number of big towns and cities will have to close down, and more millions of people will be left derelict on public funds, and there will be no funds to meet the responsibilities that will have to be faced. I ask the Government, what are you going to do then? We know what you are doing in twisting the figures, and by administrative action saying that certain people are not genuinely seeking employment. Those living at home with their parents cannot receive anything out
of public funds, and so you reduce the figures by administrative action and saying everything degrading us in the view of the country—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that in discussing matters outside the terms of the Motion he is out of order.

Mr. JONES: I am very pleased to have you remind me again that I am not in order, but these matters are more important than I am. I am not interested in Mesopotamia; I am interested in "Mess-up-at-homeia." I want to know what is the remedy for West Ham? I am not concerned with Mosul or any other place beyond the dreams of my avarice. I want to know what is to become of the class I represent and of the people for whom I stand? Is the Prime Minister going to give us an opportunity of discussing these questions with regard to the condition of the people? Thomas Carlyle has said that the condition-of-the people question is the only question that matters. We represent these people in the industrial areas of Great Britain who are almost down and out. We are asking the Prime Minister now if he will kindly condescend to allow its to have an opportunity of raising these questions in the House, because people, outside want to know what Parliament is doing. There is no use in sending Communists for trial or of using Parliament as a kind of a dead wall to prevent us from raising these matters. There is no use in sending them to gaol for preaching sedition. We have been fighting these people; we have been howled down— I do not mind that— because we have been trying to keep a proper course between the deep sea of revolution and that of reaction. Sensible men are getting tired of the way in which these matters are being treated. They will have to be discussed. So far as the Rating and Valuation Bill is concerned, we know what we are in for. In West Ham it means an increase of sixpence in the rate.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot discuss the merits of the Bill to which he refers.

Mr. JONES: I was only indicating its possibilities not its merits, because it has got none. So far as we are concerned we want these matters discussed because they
concern the welfare of the people whom we represent.

The PRIME MINISTER: rose—

Mr. STEPHEN: On a point of Order. Is it in order for the Prime Minister to speak again since he has already taken part in this Debate?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It would be most unusual to press a point like that.

Mr. STEPHEN: Some of us have waited here, all the afternoon in order to take part in this discussion, and I think that the Prime Minister should give us an opportunity of putting the points which we have got to put to him. There has been only one Scottish voice raised in this discussion to-day.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: May I point out to the hon. Member the obvious inconsistency of requesting the Prime Minister to state his intention with regard to business and then objecting to his speaking again.

Mr. STEPHEN: The Prime Minister has already pointed out to-day that he likes to take as many questions as possible altogether and to answer them altogether so as to avoid the waste of time. He made that statement to-day to me, and I suggest that it would save the time of this House if he would give us an opportunity of putting some questions to him with regard to public business.

Mr. W. THORNE: Before the Prime Minister replies, may I ask a question with regard to paragraph 3 of the Resolution. As I understand, the practice of the House in meeting on Friday at 11 o'clock and adjourning at 4 will cease, and we shall revert to the old custom of meeting at 12 and adjourning at 5.

The PRIME MINISTER: We have passed through the House early in the Session a Motion that the time for meeting on Friday should be 11 o'clock and that the House should rise at 4. That is not altered at all by this Motion. From the speeches which have been made it might be imagined that we were doing something unprecedented and something which would rob the House of a great many privileges which it possessed. As a matter of fact the only change which the Resolution will make in practice is that
the taking of non-Government business on Wednesday evening at 8.15 goes. I think that the position at the moment more than justifies the reply which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pembroke (Major Price) when I told him that it was impossible so early in the Session as this afternoon to tell him whether or not time would be available for the discussion of Pembroke and Rosyth, and, in answering a supplementary question, that it was obviously the only answer that could be given because Pembroke and Rosyth are only one important question of many important questions which Members would desire to discuss, and it would be my object to see how far, in the short time available, it might be possible to accommodate the desires of a great number of Members.
No fewer than fourteen subjects have been mentioned as being worthy of having time found for their discussion. The Leader of the Opposition said that if this were the normal working part of a normal working Session there would, at any rate, be one Supply day a week on which such questions could be discussed. The Opposition have suggested more than a dozen subjects which would have occupied Supply for three months and shows that with the utmost will in the world it is impossible to give time, or, what matters, adequate time, for the discussion of all these subjects, and I might add here that the more time we take in discussing this Resolution to-day the less time will be available for discussing the subjects which it is so much desired should be discussed. I should, say this, however, that having had to spend the better part of my life in this House as a private Member, and a Back Bench Member at that, I will consider very carefully the various matters that have been brought up, and we will do our utmost to give whatever time we can make available, and we will do our best as far as possible to meet the wishes that have been expressed. More than that at this stage it is impossible to do, and the House would not expect me to do more.
I recognise the importance of many of these subjects, and on the question of the Locarno Pact, one of the most important questions, we had already arranged to give one of the first days of this second part of the Session. I will consider, in
consultation with the other quarters of the House, the questions which they have raised. It may be that we can find time during these weeks that are coming for discussion of several of them if too long time be not demanded. At any rate we will do our best. It must be obvious that the amount of time that will be available must be conditioned very largely by the progress that is made in business. The House has a great deal of business to do. I quite appreciate the points raised by the Leader of the Opposition. I have no quarrel with him for initiating this Debate or for dividing, but I think that in my very few remarks I have made clear the position of this Government or of any Government in this matter. With the undertaking, which I have given, that we will do our utmost, I hope that the House will allow us to get on with the ordinary business as the sooner we dispose of this matter the sooner we shall be able to enter into the discussion of these other matters.

Mr. THOMAS: Would my right hon. Friend undertake specifically to give some opportunity for discussion of the Kadaver question? I say that, not only because of the tremendous interest in the subject in this country, but because the feeling in America is such that the matter ought to be cleared up satisfactorily. It cannot be done by question and answer.

The PRIME MINISTER: I am sorry that I cannot answer that, because obviously, from what my right hon. Friend says, that it is a matter of great importance and one which has caused a great deal of excitement and feeling, I shall have to look into it. I confess that i have not myself followed it at all. I will look into it. I think it would be the kind of subject on which it would bo better, if it were possible, to have a statement made, because I do not feel, having just heard about this from my right hon. Friend for the first time, that it is the kind of subject that would lend itself very well to debate. But I will consider the matter. My right hon. Friend must understand that I am not giving a pledge, but am only expressing a desire to look into the matter.

Mr. STEPHEN: There is a point that has not been raised so far. In the preceding part of the Session the conduct of
the business of the House was such that there was an almost continual suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule, with the result that the opportunities given for private Members bringing business before the House became more than ever limited. I would like the Prime Minister to give us some assurance that during this part of the Session we will have more opportunity, and that there will not be the continual suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule. There are many questions that one wants to raise with regard to the different. Departments, and now it has become practically impossible to get an opportunity of doing so. There is another point, with regard to the Rent Restrictions Bill for Scotland, which was introduced by the Secretary for Scotland. Do the Government intend to go on with that Bill? The Prime Minister paid a visit to Scotland and there saw something of the deplorable housing conditions under which out people are living there. I suggest to him and to the Secretary for Scotland that, having seen for themselves the conditions in Scotland, an opportunity should be taken, in connection with the Bill, to make it impossible for people to get rents for those hovels which greatly aggravate the situation at the present time.
I also hope that we shall have an opportunity of discussing the Government's policy on reduction of expenditure, with special reference to the extraordinary burden imposed on the country owing to the interest on the National Debt. That is a matter to which the Government might give a good deal of attention, in looking around to find ways in which economies may be effected. I thought there would have been a protest from the opposite benches with regard to this Motion by the Prime Minister. I thought we might have had the views of the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) or some of his diehard colleagues, who might have seen in this Motion an attempt to prevent him from raising the question of the political levy. Having heard the Prime Minister's statement, that the Motion follows the ordinary custom at this time of the Session, and having the benefit of his experience, I am quite willing to believe that it was not from fear of the hon. Member for Argyllshire and his colleagues that this Motion was put on the Paper. I hope that we shall
get more opportunities of using the half-hour from 11 o'clock to 11.30 for dealing with Departmental questions, and that the Secretary for Scotland will do something for the reduction of rents in Glasgow, and make it impossible for people to get rents for the hovels in which so many people are now living.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Really, the Prime Minister's reply has been deplor-able— deplorable from the point of view of securing exactly what he wants. The right hon. Gentleman says, "If you are good boys we will give you plenty of opportunities for talking about everything." Hon. Members on this side do not want an opportunity of talking about everything; we want to get something done. If the right hon. Gentleman imagines that he is going to get an easy run through this Session on those lines, he is mistaken. If he looks at the Order Paper to-morrow he will find enough Amendments to the Tithe Bill and the Rating and Valuation Bill to occupy the five weeks by themselves. We want to have an opportunity of persuading the Government to do what we believe to be right in order to improve trade and reduce unemployment. I do not believe that there is a statesman in this House who does not know that unemployment is the vital question that we have to solve. Yet we have five weeks of Parliamentary work, and not one subject to be dealt with touches on the question of unemployment in the least. We have Bills relating to criminal justice, rating and valuation, tithe— more money for the landlords— but every single Measure that the Government is bringing forward to occupy our time has no practical bearing upon the curse of this country to-day. When we get up one after another and point out the calamitous position not only of our constituents but of the whole of the country, with unemployment increasing in spite of the figures that the Government produce, with more and more unemployed thrown upon the rates without the rates being able to meet the charge, and no provision made to help the ratepayers over the difficult times, the right hon. Gentleman gets up and says, "If you will not discuss the other things, we shall have plenty of time to discuss everything."
That is playing with the Opposition. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because, if it is in the interests of the country that we should get something done for unemployment, it ought not to be done as a gift to the Opposition in return for a concession on their part. If there is anything that can be done to reduce unemployment and to improve trade, the Government should put it into operation. If Parliament has any value at all it is as a debating ground where we can state our ideas clearly and put them into the heads of the Government. If you deprive us of such opportunities you are thereby stifling Parliament and depriving it of its normal function. In other parts of the Session there are Supply days regularly once or twice a week, and there are endless opportunities to call the attention of the Government to the ways in which unemployment might be dealt with. Now, at the tail end of the Session, we have no Supply days and no possibility of putting forward a single view, but have to discuss day after day and night after night the Tithe Bill or the Rating and Valuation Bill. It is a perfect scandal. It always used to be said that the first function of a Member of Parliament was to be, not a law maker, but a critic of the Government. Criticism of the Executive is the first function of a Member of Parliament. Yet here in this Motion the Government deprive Parliament of the slightest opportunity of criticising anything they do. You can ask questions and get the sort of answers that we have been getting to-day. You can put the strongest case before the Government by speeches outside the House, but you are not allowed to make a single speech inside the House, except to-day when we try to make our speeches, with the eye of the Deputy-Speaker on us all the time.
You are turning Parliament into a farce. The Government say, "If you are good we will give you a chance of discussing the Kadaver lies." There are more important things than that. There are more important things than the stifling of freedom of speech and opinion, which the Government prosecution of the Communists has brought forward. Yes, more important even than destroying of one of the old traditions of the British people. There is the question of the
starvation of the people of this country. I tell the Government and this House that that question is growing in importance and in intensity, as more and more people come to realise that unemployment is the cause of poverty not only among the unemployed, but in all ranks of labour. The competition of the unemployed with the man who has a job is what keeps his wages down, breaks his trade union and creates poverty. As this is more and more realised, we shall force the Government, slowly but certainly, to take up this question of unemployment, to put forward their schemes, and to listen to our schemes in order to sec whether, by putting our brains together, we cannot work out something for the permanent benefit of mankind.

Mr. THURTLE: The House will be making a very serious mistake if it gives the Government the power which is sought in this Motion. In considering whether we ought to give the Government full control of our time during the next five weeks, we have to take two things into consideration. We have to consider the nature of the Government and the use it is going to make of the time. There might be some Governments to which we might be justified in giving the full use of time, but if you take this particular Government, with its record in the past and its proposals for the future, I am certain that the great mass of the people of the country would say that we would not be justified in giving the whole of our time to them. Take the programme as outlined for these five weeks. It does not touch in any way the realities of the situation as we find them in the country. The Prime Minister a few months ago asked us to get back to realities. I would like him and his supporters to get back to realities, to the hard reality of unemployment. The Prime Minister, above all people, ought to be capable of allotting sufficient time to that great problem, for ho has professed himself extremely concerned with the tragic position of the unemployed. I remember that about two years ago he said that no Government was fit to remain in office which would not bend all its energies to the solution of this tragic problem. Yet we find now— with the right hon. Gentleman himself as Prime Minister— that the Government are not proposing
to utilise one single hour of this Autumn Session for the purpose of dealing with this problem.
I thought that some proposals might be put before us in order to remedy the rank injustices which are becoming manifest as a result of the Unemployment Insurance Act passed last summer. It is common knowledge to hon. Members who represent great industrial constituencies such as I represent, that this legislation has resulted in intolerable hardships to many worthy citizens. If the Government were really alive to that fact, as they ought to be, they would, during this Autumn Session, bring in amending legislation to mitigate the hardships caused by their work of last summer. [do not know if I am permitted to illustrate the kind of hardships which are involved and from which people are suffering to-day, but, if I may, I would like to cite one case as an illustration of my point. I find that consequent upon that legislation, a disabled ex-service man with a paralysed left side, in receipt of a permanent pension of 30 per cent. from the Ministry of Pensions—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): I do not think that would be in Order in this discussion.

Mr. THURTLE: I thank you, Sir, for putting mo right. I imagined that I might be trespassing upon your indulgence if I dealt with that particular illustration. We will let that matter pass. The broad fact is that there is a great mass of suffering and injustice as a result of that legislation, and if the Government were concerned with the position of the unemployed they would, to-day, in view of this fact, bring in special legislation to put these matters right. Apparently they are not prepared to do so. Reference has already been made to the question of setting apart time for a discussion on the administration of the law. It is absolutely essential that not only we in this House but the country as a whole, should have the belief that the scales of justice are being held evenly. At the present time, as a result of what has been happening in recent weeks, the people certainly have not that impression, and it would be a very good thing from the point of view of all parties in the House, if the Government were to allot time for a discussion of this question— that discussion to include a
consideration of the question of whether or not the incidents which took place in Ulster in 1914 and the precedents then established have not a great deal to do with the present troubles arising in connection with the administration of justice.
There is also the question of Iraq. I gather that vital though this question is to the people of this country and to posterity, the Government do not intend to allow any time during this Session for its discussion. It is of tremendous and tragic importance to the great mass of the people that we should have an opportunity of considering whether or not we are to continue our mandate in Iraq for another 25 years and before we are committed in the slightest degree, either by definite agreements or by obligations of honour, this House should have the fullest opportunity of discussing the subject. People are now urging the country and the Government to remain in Iraq for the purpose of defending certain Christians there. I hope we shall have an opportunity of bringing to bear upon this question the full intelligence of this House before the Government is committed in any way to that policy. Having regard to past experience, I do not believe that the country wants the Government to pour out British blood and British treasure on the sandy deserts of Iraq for the sake of oil interests or even for the sake of an alleged few thousand Iraq Christians. On the question of the Locarno Pact I take a standpoint different from that of some other hon. Members who have spoken. It has been suggested that a day is perhaps rather too much time to give to this subject. I suggest that the subject is so tremendously important that a day is hardly sufficient for its discussion. I do not know what hon. Members opposite feel about this question, but in the light of my own experience in the last War and in the light of my knowledge of the feeling of the people as to the possibilities of future war, I do not think we should, without the fullest possible discussion, pledge the next generation to the chance of another war by entering into military commitments. What is more, the Government in fairness to the House ought to make such arrangements as would permit not only of a full discussion but also of a definite Vote being recorded on this issue. There are many Members, I feel sure, who would like, by means of
a definite Vote, to record their opposition to the proposed Pact, and in order to get a true reflex of feeling in the House it is the duty of the Government to make such provision as will enable this to be done.
On the important question of housing the Government are preening themselves that the rate of building has increased considerably and I think they expect in the course of a year to put up something like 150,000 houses. I hope no one is going to assume from that statement that there is no acute housing problem facing the country. Our people are still herded together like cattle and it is the business of the Government, even in this short Session of five weeks, to devote some time to the consideration of this vital matter. I do not know why houses are not going up faster than is the case to-day, but if it is through lack of sufficient subsidy the Government ought to be prepared, even now, to bring forward proposals for an increased subsidy. I believe the Prime Minister himself when in Scotland did suggest that the subsidy might be increased to the extent of £50 per house in the case of steel houses, if Scotland is in a bad way in regard to overcrowding and slumdom of the East End of London is in an equally desperate condition and if there is to be a proposal for an increased subsidy, I would like the Government to bring forward such a proposal in this Session and to make it applicable not merely to Scotland, but to the whole country.
I notice that the Medical Officer of the Board of Education in his last Report remarked in very strong terms on the deterioration in the physique of school children. If one thing is more important than another in this country, it is the well-being of the children, and we ought to devote all our efforts to seeing that their physique is of the best possible standard. Had the Government the welfare of the children at heart, they would, in the time at their disposal, bring forward as an emergency measure proposals to increase the facilities for feeding school children. After all, the country is not in such a desperate financial condition that it cannot spare the few thousand pounds necessary to give these hungry children the necessary food. The question of pensions has already been re-
ferred to, but it is worth while referring to it again, and I appeal to hon. Members opposite in particular for their support on this point.

Sir P. PILDITCH: On a point of Order. I understand Mr. Speaker's ruling was that Members might refer to subjects. May I ask whether it is in Order for Member after Member to refer at length to the same subjects?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am following the hon. Member closely, and I must say his references are long references. I hope he will make rather shorter references to the different subjects.

Mr. THURTLE: I shall endeavour, Sir, to comply with your suggestion. I believe you will appreciate that although these subjects have already been mentioned, I am trying in my own indifferent way to deal with them from another angle. The broad point to which I wish to refer in connection with pensions is that of final awards. This has been a subject of tremendous agitation on both sides of the House and we all know of large numbers of cases of gross injustice to ex-service men which result from the final award system. We desire that the Government should try to spare at least a half-day in these five weeks for a discussion of that point— and there would be complete agreement all over the House if they did so— in order to bring in an Amendment of the Royal Warrant dealing with the question of final awards and in that way give large numbers of ex-service men some little measure of justice. My final point deals with a somewhat contentious matter. I am surprised that there is no reference in the programme of the Government to the question of the Ministry of Health making it possible that information about birth control should be obtainable at maternity centres. I believe that the feeling which exists among working-class women—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not think the hon. Member should make long references to these various subjects. If be mentions the fact that time should be given for a discussion of a subject it will be sufficient.

Mr. THURTLE: I think. Sir, you are a little severe on me in this instance. I Had only completed one sentence. I will
suggest, however, that in view of the tremendous feeling which there is among women on the subject, the Government should if possible find time for a discussion of it. I hope the Government will realise that, on these benches at any rate, there is strong discontent with the arbitrary manner in which they are now seeking to allot the whole of the available time to their own particular business. I will end, as I began, by saying that if it were a Government worthy of our support and worthy of the whole time of the House. I would be the first to say, without any discussion, "By all means, let us give them the time," but the Government being such as it is, and having failed by its actions in the past and its promises for the future to merit the confidence of the country in the slightest degree, I shall oppose this proposal to the fullest possible extent.

Mr. R. MORRISON: The Prime Minister, in his reply a few minutes ago, has entirely failed to grasp the significance of the speeches that have been made from these benches. I think it will be generally admitted that Members who sit on this side are more closely in touch with the masses of the people of this country—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"]

Mr. LANSBURY: You are only representing a minority.

Mr. MORRISON: I repeat that it is generally taken for granted that Members on this side are more in touch with the mass of the working people—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO! "]

Mr. LANSBURY: You are a ghastly minority!

Mr. MORRISON: That being so, the speeches delivered here represent the feelings of apprehension that exist among the working people of this country that, after three and a-half months' holiday, this Parliament now proposes to fritter away its short Autumn Session by refusing to deal with any of the things that so vitally concern them. At Question time, the Prime Minister was asked a question in regard to the electricity proposals of the Government, and I asked a supplementary question as to whether he could give any explanation of the extraordinary delay that has arisen in producing these electricity proposals. He said that the only explanation he
could give was the extraordinary complexity of the subject. It is a pity the Prime Minister and our friends opposite did not realise that a year ago, when the Labour Government was in office and was being pressed to produce the proposals that, after a year in office, the present Government has so far failed to produce.
Time ought to be given in this Session to discuss the extraordinary variety of propositions that have recently emanated from Ministers of the Crown. There is, first, the proposal that is being freely mentioned in the Press that the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to make a raid on the Road Fund. The Home Secretary, evidently not having quite enough to do in his own job, ventures to put his spoke in to help the Minister of Transport to do his job as well, and in a recent interview in the "Evening News," he put forward the suggestion that the Government should issue £20,000,000 in bonds guaranteed by the Road Fund. We ought to have some opportunity during this Session of discussing that proposal. If the Home Secretary actually means that the Government are going to deal with that question and that he has put it before the Cabinet, surely the House and the country are entitled to know, but if he is only filling in time in order to fill up a column of the "Evening News." the House and the country are entitled to know that as well.
We want also to know why the schemes for promoting the employment of people out of work appear to be at a standstill. A year ago three definite proposals were before this House repeatedly, and hon. Members opposite, who were then on this side, were constantly twitting the Labour Government and asking why the work was not actually started. We should like an opportunity of discussing, during this short Autumn Session, why it is that three out of many more proposals of that time have not yet been started. The three in question are the road proposed from Manchester to Liverpool, the road from Aldgate to the Docks, and the tunnel to connect Kent with Essex. All these proposals were urged last year when the Labour Government occupied those benches, and we should like now to discuss why it is that, nearly a year and a half later, there, are no indications of them being started yet, and it looks as if the present winter will go through
without any of those schemes being commenced. I understood, from speeches that right hon. Gentlemen have been delivering in the country during the Recess, that we were also going to get some legislation to deal with the drastic toll of life and limb that is being taken on the roads. I understood that legislation was likely to be introduced to deal with the trouble of the speed limit on many of our roads, and also with the scandal of short-weight in foodstuffs and the adulteration of them, to deal with the revelations that have been put before the Royal Commission by the past President of the Incorporated Society of Inspectors of Weights and Measures in regard to the cheating and adulteration that are being practised by certain big business men in this country, and the swindling of consumers by selling goods short weight.
It seems to us, from the close touch that we have with the masses of the people of this country, that they are apprehensive of the fact that Parliament, after three and a-half months' holiday, is now going to fritter this short Session away. I know that the reply will be that there will not be time to deal with all the questions that have been mentioned from this side, but my reply to that is that these matters are admittedly urgent, that this House has no business to close down for three and a-half months, that it has no business now to deal largely with questions that do not affect the working people of this country, and that it has no business, at the end of this short Session, to close down for another seven weeks' holiday. The people of this country are rapidly losing faith in the methods of this House, and I am sorry that the Prime Minister's reply was so unsympathetic as still further to destroy their confidence that Parliament will do something to relieve them.

Mr. BATEY: I want to ask the House to reject the Motion of the Prime Minister on grounds that have not yet been advanced by any speaker. In this Autumn Session we shall need some time on this side to discuss the mining question. The Prime Minister must not get it into his head that, because there is a Royal Commission sitting, the mining question need not be discussed in this House. There are
several things in connection with the mining situation that demand that this House shall spend, not one day, but several days in discussing them. We have thousands of our men, with their wives and families, who are being pushed down into poverty, men who have been locked out by the employers, who have stopped the pits and locked the men out, and then the men are being refused unemployment benefit. We believe that no court of law would have refused those men unemployment benefit on any ground whatever, and, as a matter of fact, we have had this recent experience. We have a very large colliery with some 2,500 men and lads, and a member from our miners' organisation met the umpire, along with a deputation of the working people, and put all the facts of the case before the umpire, who turned them down and refused unemployment benefit. Then, after the men had been out of work for some eight or nine weeks, living on parish relief, one of the Members of this House met the umpire— and I am glad that he did; I am quite prepared to give him all the credit for his action—and the umpire immediately granted the unemployment benefit.
If the unemployment benefit was due last week, it was due at the beginning, and what is true of that colliery is true also of many more collieries in Durham County. We have coalowners there who are pushing conditions on our men that are carrying us back to 50 years ago. We are having some of the very worst conditions put on our miners in Durham at the present time that we have had for the last 50 years in mining and no one connected with the mining industry would have believed 20 years ago that we would have got so far back as we have done since the end of the War, and especially during the last few months. I know of one colliery where the owners have forced such conditions on the men that one shift of men goes to work at 4 in the morning and comes out of the pit at 11; the second shift does not go into the pit till 11.30, and comes out at 6.30, and the third shift goes into the pit at 9.30, thus destroying the whole of the social life of our colliery villages. Sometimes hon. Members upbraid the Labour party for holding Sunday meetings, but Sunday is sometimes the only time at which we can get meetings. The whole of the social life of our colliery
villages is being destroyed, and unless men accept these bad conditions, we find the umpire on the side of the coalowners. Not only so, but in ever so many cases we have got the coalowners enforcing longer hours on our men, and unless they accept those hours the umpire sides with the owners and refuses to give the men unemployment benefit. The time has come when we think we ought to have a day to bring before this House the necessity of having a new umpire, an umpire who will deal fairly between masters and men, and who will not always take the side of the employers against the men. That is one of the grounds on which we believe we shall need some time during this Session for discussion.
The subsidy was given just before the House rose in August, and we have had some little experience of it since then, and have learned this, that the Prime Minister made a huge mistake in giving the subsidy unconditionally to the coalowners. We believe that he ought to have said to the coal owners: "We are prepared to give a subsidy, but only on condition that you are prepared to work all your collieries." If he had done that, we should have had all the pits working, but we have more pits idle to-day in Durham County than we had when the subsidy was given. I also want

to put this to the Prime Minister, that when we, in this House, voted the subsidy, we did not believe we were voting it to coalowners who keep their collieries closed to be paid on pits that were closed. We believed that we were voting a subsidy that would be paid only on pits that were working, but instead of that we find that the Government is paying a subsidy on pits that are closed, and, therefore, encouraging coalowners to keep them closed. It is no use the Prime Minister getting it into his mind that he can claim the whole of the time of this Autumn Session. We need some days to discuss these questions that affect our people so much, especially when we find our people being pushed down into poverty as they are to-day. Therefore, I hope the House will refuse to give the Prime Minister the Motion for which he is asking to-night.

Several HON. MEMBERS: having risen—

The PRIME MINISTER: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 278; Noes, 121.

Division No. 357.]
AYES.
[6.0 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Buckingham, Sir H.
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Bullock, Captain M.
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)


Albery, Irving James
Burman, J. B.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Dean, Arthur Wellesley


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Doyle, Sir N. Grattan


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Caine, Gordon Hall
Drewe, C.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Campbell, E. T.
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Cassels, J. D.
Elliot, Captain Walter E.


Astor, Viscountess
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Elveden, Viscount.


Atholl, Duchess of
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Erskine Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)


Atkinson, C.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Everard, W. Lindsay


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Balniel, Lord
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Christie, J. A.
Finburgh, S.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Fleming, D. P.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Clarry, Reginald George
Ford, P. J.


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Clayton, G. C.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Cabb, Sir Cyril
Forrest, W.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cope, Major William
Foster, Sir Harry S.


Berry, Sir George
Couper, J. B.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.


Betterton, Henry B.
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Fraser, Captain Ian


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Frece, Sir Walter de


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Ganzoni, Sir John


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Gates, Percy


Brass, Captain W.
Crook, C. W.
Gee, Captain R.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Goff, Sir Park


Briggs, J. Harold
Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Gower, Sir Robert


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry
Grace, John


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Grant, J. A.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H.(W'th's'w, E)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Dalziel, Sir Davison
Gretton, Colonel John


Grotrian, H. Brent
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dtworth, Putney)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Macintyre, Ian
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R.(Eastbourne)
McLean, Major A.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Savery, S. S.


Hammersley, S. S.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Harrison, G. J. C.
Malone, Major P. B.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Harvey. G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Margesson, Captain D.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Haslam, Henry C.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Smithers, Waldron


Hawke, John Anthony
Meller, R. J.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Murchison, C. K.
Storry Deans, R.


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Nall Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Holland, Sir Arthur
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Holt, Captain H. P.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Templeton, W. P.


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Oakley, T.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Hopkins, J. W. W.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Tinne, J. A.


Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Pease, William Edwin
Tichfleld, Major the Marquess of


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Pennefather, Sir John
Waddington, R.


Hurd, Percy A.
Penny, Frederick George
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Hurst, Gerald B.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Perring, William George
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Peto G. (Somerset, Frome)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Jacob, A. E.
Philipson, Mabel
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Jephcott, A. R.
Pielou, D. P.
Wells, S. R.


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Pilcher, G.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Pliditch, Sir Philip
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Williams. Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Preston, William
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Knox, Sir Alfred
Price, Major C. W. M.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Lamb, J. O.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Lister Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Rawson, Alfred Cooper
Windsor-Clive Lieut.-Colonel George


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Reid. D. D. (County Down)
Womersley, W. J.


Loder, J. de V.
Remer, J. R.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Looker. Herbert William
Remnant. Sir James
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Lord, Walter Greaves
Rentoul G. S.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Lowe, Sir Francis William
Rice, Sir Frederick
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Lumley. L. R.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)



Lynn, Sir R. J.
Rye, F. G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Salmon, Major I.
Commander B. Eyres Monsell and


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Colonel Gibbs.


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon, Vernon


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Crawfurd, H. E.
Hastings, Sir Patrick


Ammon, Charles George
Dennison, R.
Hayes, John Henry


Attlee, Clement Richard
Duncan, C.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Dunnico, H.
Hirst, G. H.


Baker, Walter
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Fenby, T. D.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Barnes, A.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)


Barr, J.
Gillett, George M.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Batey, Joseph
Gosling, Harry
John. William (Rhondda, West)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Greenall, T.
Jones. Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Broad, F. A.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Kelly, W. T.


Bromley, J.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Kenyon, Barnet


Cape, Thomas
Groves, T.
Lansbury, George


Charleton, H. C.
Grundy, T. W.
Lawson, John James


Clowes, S.
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Lee, F.


Cluse, W. S.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Livingstone, A. M.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Lowth, T.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lunn, William


Compton, Joseph
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)


Cove, W. G.
Hardle, George D.
Mackinder, W.




MacLaren, Andrew
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Viant, S. P.


March, S.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Montague, Frederick
Sitch, Charles H.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Naylor, T. E.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Westwood, J.


Oliver, George Harold
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Whiteley, W.


Paling, W.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Ponsonby, Arthur
Snell, Harry
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Potts, John S.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Riley, Ben
Stephen, Campbell
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)
Sutton, J. E.
Windsor, Walter


Rose, Frank H.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Wright, W.


Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)



Scrymgeour, E.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Scurr, John
Thurtle, E.
Mr. T. Kennedy and Mr. Charles


Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Tinker, John Joseph
Edwards.


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Townend, A. E.

Question put accordingly,

"That during the remainder of the Session—

(1) Government Business do have precedence;
(2) At the conclusion of Government Business or of Proceedings made in purance of any Act of Parliament requiring any Order, Rule, or Regulation to be laid before the House of Commons, which shall be taken immediately after Government Business. Mr. Speaker shall propose the Question, That this House do now adjourn,

and, if that Question shall not have been agreed to, Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House, without Question put, not later than one hour after the conclusion of Government Business, if that Business has been concluded before 10.30 p.m., but, if that Business has not been so concluded, not later than 11.30 p.m.

(3) If the day be a Friday the House, unless it otherwise resolves, shall at its rising stand adjourned until the following Monday."

The House divided: Ayes, 285; Noes, 121.

Division No. 358.]
AYES.
[6.12 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Caine, Gordon Hall
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Campbell, E. T.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Cassels, J. D.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Albery, Irving James
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Finburgh, S.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Fleming, D. p.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Ford, P. J.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander, F. W.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Forrest, W.


Astor, Viscountess
Christie, J. A.
Foster, Sir Harry S.


Atholl, Duchess of
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.


Atkinson, C.
Clarry, Reginald George
Fraser, Captain Ian


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Clayton, G. C.
Frece, Sir Walter de


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Balniel, Lord
Cope, Major William
Ganzoni, Sir John


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Couper, J. B.
Gates, Percy


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Gee, Captain R.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Courthope. Lieut. -Col. Sir George L.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Goff, Sir Park


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Gower, Sir Robert


Berry, Sir George
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Grace, John


Betterton, Henry B.
Crook, C. W.
Grant, J. A.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H.(W'th's'w, E.)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Gretton, Colonel John


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Grotrian, H. Brent


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Brass, Captain W.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hall, Lieut. -Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R.(Eastbourne)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Dalziel, Sir Davison
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Briggs, J. Harold
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Hammersley, S. S.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Harrison, G. J. C.


Brown, Brig.- Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Bullock, Captain M.
Drewe, C.
Haslam, Henry C.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hawke, John Anthony


Burman, J. B.
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Elveden, Viscount
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Marriott. Sir J. A. R.
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Meller, R. J.
Shaw, B. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)


Herbert, S.(York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Merriman, F. B.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Simms, Dr: John M. (Co. Down)


Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Moore-Brabazon Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Smithers, Waldron


Holland, Sir Arthur
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Holt, Captain H. P.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Murchison, C. K.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)


Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Storry Deans, R.


Hurd, Percy A.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Hurst, Gerald B.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Oakley, T.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Sugden, Sir Wilfred


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Jacob, A. E.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Jephcott, A. R.
Pease, William Edwin
Templeton, W. P.


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Pennefather, Sir John
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Penny, Frederick George
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Perring, William George
Tinne, J. A.


Knox, Sir Alfred
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Lamb, J. O.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Waddington, R.


Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.
Philipson, Mabel
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Pielou, D. P.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Pilcher, G.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Warrender, Sir Victor


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Loder, J. de V.
Preston, William
Watson, Rt. Hon. w. (Carlisle)


Looker, Herbert William
Price, Major C. W. M.
Wells, S. R.


Lord, Walter Greaves-
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Lowe, Sir Francis William
Rawson, Alfred Cooper
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Lumley, L. R.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Lunn, William
Remer, J. R.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Lynn, Sir R. J.
Remnant, Sir James
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Mac Andrew, Charles Glen
Rentoul G. S.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Rice, Sir Frederick
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Wise, Sir Fredric


McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Womersley, W. J.


Macintyre, Ian
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


McLean, Major A.
Rye, F. G.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Salmon, Major I.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Malone, Major P. B.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.



Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Margesson, Captain D.
Savery, S. S.
Captain Hacking and Major Hennessy.


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Duncan, C.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Dunnico, H.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)


Ammon, Charles George
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Fenby, T. D.
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Baker, Walter
Gillett, George M.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Gosling, Harry
Kelly, W. T.


Barnes, A.
Greenall, T.
Kenyon Barnet


Barr, J.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Lansbury, George


Batey, Joseph
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lawson, John James


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lee, F.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Groves, T.
Lowth, T.


Broad, F. A.
Grundy, T. W.
Lunn, William


Bromley, J.
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)


Cape, Thomas
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Mackinder, W.


Charieton, H. C.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
MacLaren, Andrew


Clowes, S.
Hall. G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Cluse, W. S.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
March, S.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hardle, George D.
Montague, Frederick


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Compton, Joseph
Hastings, Sir Patrick
Naylor, T. E.


Connolly, M.
Hayes, John Henry
Oliver, George Harold


Cove, W. G.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Paling, W.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hirst, G. H.
Ponsonby, Arthur


Dennison, R.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Potts, John S.




Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Riley, Ben
Snell, Harry
Westwood, J.


Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Whiteley, W.


Ross, Frank H.
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Stephen, Campbell
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh. Wrexham)


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Sutton, J. E.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Scrymgeour, E.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Scurr, John
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheineld, Attercliffe)


Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Windsor, Walter


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Thurtle, E.
Wright, W.


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Tinker, John Joseph
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Townend, A. E.



Sitch, Charles H.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Viant, S. P.
Mr. T. Kennedy and Mr. Charles


Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Wallhead, Richard C.
Edwards.


Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney



Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. It. McNeill]

Orders of the Day — EXPIRING LAWS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I gather that it is not wished to have any lengthy discussion upon the Second Reading of this Bill, but there are one or two differences in the form in the Bill this year, and I think we ought certainly, before we proceed to pass it, have some explanation from the Government benches. It is true that the drafting of the Bill has probably been affected by the Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons in 1922, and the Select Committee which reported this year. The thing which must appeal to Members of the House of Commons to-day is that for, I think, the first time this Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill contains a Schedule which is divided into three parts. The first Schedule is divided into two Sub-sections, one of which contains the enactments made permanent, and the other of which contains enactments continued permanently in force. The second Schedule is on the same basis as the Expiring Laws (Continuance Act) of previous years.
I should like to ask what exactly is meant by the change in the wording in Clause 3 (Amending Enactments) of the Bill? When I look back to 1923, I find in Section 1 (4) the following:
Any unrepealed enactments amending or affecting the enactments continued by the Act shall, in so far as they are temporary in their duration, be continued in like manner whether they are mentioned in the Schedule to this Act or not.
The corresponding Clause in the present Bill states that:
Any unrepealed enactments amending or affecting the enactments made permanent or continued by this Act, shall, in so far as they are temporary in their duration become permanent or be continued in like manner, whether they are mentioned in the First or Second Schedule (as the case may be) to this Act or not.
It may be said that this is merely a drafting Amendment to cover this new procedure under the Schedule. But there is so much depending upon the whole series of laws which may, from time to time, be
continued in the Schedule, that I think we ought to have a very definite assurance, from whoever is in charge of the Bill, as to what that Clause means.
Then, Sir, I should also like to ask, if it be within your ruling a fit subject for question upon the Second Reading, as to what basis has been adopted by the Government in deciding which Act shall be brought forward under this Bill for permanent inclusion, or to be continued permanently in force, or to be continued temporarily only? Some of us, for example, are interested in a number of Acts appearing in the Second Schedule, and think that in view of the recommendations of the Select Committee of 1922, these Acts have all gone through a sufficiently long experimental stage for them either to be permanently rejected or permanently continued. They are still on the temporary list. We should like to know exactly what has led the Government to select in this Bill those Acts which are put down for a permanent place in the Statute Book, and those for a temporary place?
There is one other question. I do not know whether the Government has had any direct recommendations made to them for the inclusion of another Act in the Schedule. We have before the House at the present time a Bill which has passed through the Committee Stage which deals with the future settlement of tithe. Whilst it would be quite out of order to discuss that Bill to-night, some of us think that it is rather unfortunate that there is such a very strong body of opinion on that particular Bill before the House which it is deemed necessary to pass to make permanent, from the 1st January, on a proper basis, the tithe assessment. The Government, quite rightly from their point of view, introduced the Bill, but there is such a strong body of opinion among many sections of the community, among farmers, and others who hold certain ecclesiastical views, that the Bill ought to be recast; and that this present Bill should provide in the Schedule for the continuance of those Acts which provide for a continuance of the existing Tithe 'Acts. Would it not be better, therefore, even if we get the Second Reading of this Bill to-night, that the Government should seriously consider whether the Committee stage of the Bill should either be postponed, or at least
not completed, until those that hold the view that the Tithe Act should be brought into continuance under this Bill see what is the attitude of the Government on the Tithe Bill on Thursday next?

Mr. SPEAKER: As to the inclusion of the Bill referred to by the hon. Member, if the House does not desire it to be included, the matter can be raised on the Committee stage. That is the proper place to raise it.

Mr. RAWLINSON: Might I point out to the hon. Member who has just spoken that the proper procedure in the case he states would be to put the three Bills which expire on 31st December into the Committee stage, and then insert them in the Schedule. There is no reason for delaying the Bill on that account. That could, and should be, done to-morrow, if the Government consents. I quite agree in every way with what has been said about the position. When the Bill was in Committee everybody opposed the postponement of it for a year. Now every single interest wishes for a postponement of it for a year. Various interests, including the clergy, and now at the last moment the landed interest who published their opinion the other day want a postponement. If these are walling that there should be postponement for another year, the matter is one which would seem to require consideration, and perhaps a different Bill. The rich are affected by it and very much more the poorer clergy are very seriously affected, and everyone is now agreed to allow this matter to stand over for a year. I hope the Government will consider what has been said. I would put it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this Bill is likely to cost the country £292,000. Therefore, that money will be saved if the postponement be agreed to.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I think what has fallen from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) really ought to give pause to the Government. We are discussing the Second Reading of the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill. But is it not possible that we can postpone the Committee stage of this Bill, which is down for tomorrow, till after the Tithe Bill has been
dealt with on Thursday? I quite agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that all the interests now are asking for a postponement of the Tithe Bill. If the Bill is postponed till next year, the Government will profit to a tune, not of £290,000, but probably something more likely to be three-quarters of a million. In addition to that, if the Government pursue the course of trying to pass the Tithe Bill into law this year, they will find that there will be a very vigorous opposition in this House, and that the whole of the next six weeks will be taken up with a discussion on the Report stage of this Measure and another Measure which we will deal with later and that they will not be able to get their business through. For all those reasons I think we might have a statement now, in order to make it clear in the first place that the Government are prepared, under the new circumstances, to withdraw that Bill, and, secondly, that they are prepared to insert in the Expiring Laws Bill, when we get it into Committee, those three Acts under which poor parsons benefit to-day. I hope we may have a statement from the Government, so that we may know what to expect on Thursday, and what to insert as an Amendment in the Bill after it has got its Second Reading.

Sir JOHN SIMON: I do not desire to repeat the arguments put forward by the right hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), but I wish to say in a sentence that I, and also. I know, some of my Friends, most heartily support the appeal which is made to the Government.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): With regard to the last point raised, I do not think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) would expect that at this particular moment, at all events, I should be in a position to respond to his appeal.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: But you can tell your predecessor.

Mr. McNEILL: The House will understand that my responsibility in connection with this Bill is a more or less formal one, being concerned with the
general form in which the Bill is presented to the House. The point that has been raised is, really, a matter of policy, and I think it will be unreasonable to expect that in the case of a suggestion of that sort, dealing with a very important Bill, any member of the Government, certainly not a subordinate member like myself, should stand up and say at a moment's notice that the Government will accept or reject the proposals made. I have not the slightest doubt that more important members of the Government than myself, and those who are responsible for the Business of the House and for questions of policy, will consider the suggestions that have been made, and I have no doubt that an answer to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and those who agree with him will be given in good time. Let me just refer to a point raised by the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) with regard to Clause 3. He was a little puzzled by the change of wording in Clause 3. I think I can explain it to him. If he will look at the fourth paragraph of the Preamble, he will see there these words:
And whereas it is expedient that the Acts mentioned in the First Schedule to this Act should be made permanent or continue permanently in force.
I admit straight away that there is in substance no difference between those two phrases. The variation has been introduced in order that the facts of the case should lie on the surface of the Bill. If the hon. Member will refer to Part II of the First Schedule, he will see certain Acts set out there. In two Acts of Parliament recently passed dealing with real property there was, I suppose by an inadvertence, a repealing of legislation which went beyond what was intended and beyond what is convenient and possible. What is done in the case of the three Acts referred to in Part II of the Schedule is that the repealing of them is repealed, and they are put back upon the Statute Book. It is to emphasise that this is not the ordinary procedure to which we are all accustomed in the Expiring Laws Bill that the variation of phrase referred to was introduced.
Then the hon. Gentleman asked why certain Bills are made permanent and others continued merely for a year. He will no doubt recollect that some time ago a promise was given that a Select
Committee should inquire, at intervals of three years, into the legislation to be dealt with in this Bill, with a view to removing any Acts that were no longer required, and, generally, to exercise a sort of weeding out process upon the Schedule. The Bills which appear in the Schedule to be made permanent or to continue for one year only are there in accordance with the recommendations of the Select Committee set up in the early part of the present year. If my hon. Friend will refer to the report of that Committee he will find that its recommendations have been carried out almost, if not entirely, without exception. I think those are the only points on which he asks for information. If there is anything else he is in doubt about, I shall be glad to answer him; but I think that, apart from the one exception, he will agree that this annual Bill is in its usual form.

Sir HENRY SLESSER: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down used the phrase which has brought me to my feet. He said that the question of dealing with the Tithe Acts in the Expiring Laws Bill would be dealt with "in good time." I rise only to make this point. As I understand it, the Committee stage of this Expiring Laws Bill is to be taken to-morrow. Unless, therefore, the Government are going to make a decision to-night, or at any rate before to-morrow, on whether they are going to continue with the Tithe Bill or not, we shall be in this position that, when the Tithe Bill comes on for Report and Third Reading on Thursday, it will be impossible to continue those Tithe Acts in the present Measure, because the opportunity will have gone by. If the Government are willing to meet all the different interests concerned, and to postpone the Tithe Bill, whether the representations be made to them on behalf of the land, or of the priest, or any other interest, it is essential that the matter should be considered immediately, to-morrow morning, in order that we may put down Amendments in Committee to-morrow when the Expiring Laws Bill comes on. If the Government wish to help in the direction which we think most helpful, they should be in a position to tell the House tomorrow afternoon that they are prepared to accept our Amendment, and to continue the Tithe Acts as they exist for
another year. They can do that if the expression "in good time" means within the next 12 hours, but if it means what it sometimes means in Parliamentary language, then there will be cause for very great complaint.

Mr. McNEILL: In answer to what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, there is, of course, very little time. I cannot give any pledge in the matter at all. I think there is sufficient time to make that change if the authorities concerned are willing to do so, but I can give no pledge.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: I would like to ask a question with respect to the Schedules of this Bill. It is as well that on the Second Reading we should get any explanations that are possible, because, as I understand it, on the Committee stage of this Bill we are not allowed to discuss the details of any Bills referred to in the Schedules.

Mr. SPEAKER: It is just the other way round. On the Committee stage, the hon. member can discuss the details of the Bills in the Schedule, but not on the Second Reading.

Mr. MACLEAN: That is what I wanted to find out. Having found it out, I am going to put a question now, so that, according to the answer that is given, I shall be the better able to go into the details of one of the Bills I have in mind when the Committee stage comes on. There is in Part II of the First Schedule a reference to
34 & 35 Hen. 8, c. 20. An Acte to embarre fayned recoveries of Landes wherein the Kinges Majestye is in reversion.
What is proposed in this Schedule is not to continue this Act for another year, but to make the whole Act permanent. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, or the Law Officers, why it is that an Act which has been continued almost from year to year with, I think, the exception of the first 20 or so years after it was put into operation, has now been discovered to possess merits which require that it should be placed permanently upon the Statute Book. This is an Expiring Laws Bill, and as we are being asked to continue it, this Act must evidently be in process of expiring. If it is not an Act to be continued from
year to year or from period to period, it should not appear here. If it has been an Act that has had to be renewed periodically, I want to know why the Government have suddenly discovered virtues in it that require them to continue it permanently.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a question for to-morrow rather than for to-day. The hon. Member can raise the virtues of the legislation of Henry the Eighth to-morrow.

Mr. MACLEAN: I am not concerned with his virtues, I do not think anyone could be, they were undiscoverable, but I thought if I could get information as to the reasons for continuing it it might alter my attitude towards it in the Committee stage to-morrow.

Mr. SPEAKER: That would necessarily raise the merits of the Act, which is a proper thing to raise on the Committee stage but not on the Second Reading.

Orders of the Day — CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Provision for continuance of criminal trial where a juror dies or becomes incapable.)

Where in the course of a criminal trial any member of the jury dies or is discharged by the court as being, through illness, incapable of continuing to act or for any other reason, the jury shall nevertheless, subject to assent being given in writing by or on behalf of both the prosecutor and the accused and so long as the number of its members is not reduced below 10, be considered as remaining for all the purposes of that trial properly constituted, and the trial shall proceed and a verdict may be given accordingly.—[Sir W. Joynson-Hicks.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I beg to move "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This new clause, which I move on behalf of the Government, deals with the case
of jurymen taken ill in the course of a trial. When a juryman is taken ill or has cause to leave the jurybox, the whole trial, although it may have taken five or six days, has to be commenced all over again, generally before the same judge, and the, whole business of recalling the witnesses to give evidence has to be gone through, although 10 of the jurymen may have already heard that evidence. This has caused a good deal of inconvenience. I would remind the House that a Committee, presided over by Lord Mersey, came to the conclusion that where a member of the jury fell ill, instead of the jury being discharged and a new one empanelled, the case should go on with the 11 jurymen. The old principle of 12 jurymen has been a palladium of British justice for many years, but we have advanced to a position in civil matters where, if a juryman falls ill, the trial goes on with 11 jurymen. We have now come to the conclusion, after considerable discussion with the legal advisers of the Crown and some of His Majesty's Judges, that it would be no hardship if, under these circumstances, we were to allow the trial to go on in the event of the loss by death or otherwise of one or two jurymen. In order that there should be no hardship in such a case, we provide that this shall not be done unless the Crown prosecutor and the defendant in the box consents in writing to this course. We do not want to put the defendant in the position of having to say openly that he does not object to the same 11 men because the same 11 and one extra man might take an opposite view. We do not suggest that this consent should be given orally, but the judge would be able to ask counsel in the case to consult together and find out whether both sides were agreed, and were willing to take the verdict of the remaining 11 or 10 jurymen. We have tried to make the cast: absolutely fair.
There are three or four Clauses standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Kensington (Mr. Gates), the hon. Member for South West Hull (Mr. Grotrian) and the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Dennis Herbert). The main suggestion in these three or four Clauses is that, instead of allowing the trial to be taken with 10 or 11 jurymen, there should be sworn
beforehand two extra, supplementary jurymen to take the place of any one who falls ill or dead during the trial. I think the proposal of the Government is much simpler. The jury system is already a great strain on those who are called upon, and, if you are to have two extra jurors sworn without any right to take part in the trial, I think it will add something like 16 per cent. to the number of jurors who will be summoned. I do not quite gather from the Amendments whether these two supplementary jurymen are to sit in the jury box with the other 12 and talk to them, and more or less take a part in conducting the case, or whether they are to sit outside and take no part in the case at all.
In the first case, you would have two men, not jurymen, and they might influence the 12 real jurymen, and, even if they were sitting outside the jury box, they might be called upon on the fifth or sixth day to take part with the real jurymen, although they would not have had the advantage of four or five days' discussion with their new colleagues, and would not have gathered the real mind of the jury. I hope my hon. and learned Friends who have put down these new Clauses will agree that on the whole the proposal of the Government is the best, and would be to the real advantage of the jury system, and, what is more, that it would be perfectly fair to any accused person in any court in the land.

Mr. GATES: The Clause I have put down on the Paper was suggested to me by a very high legal authority, and at the moment I put it down I was not aware that the Government were taking any particular action in this matter. Of course, the criminal's right to be tried by 12 jurymen has always been one of the bulwarks of the liberty of the subject, and it dates back to the time of Edward III. The Home Secretary has referred to the disadvantages of the present system, which was particularly exemplified in a recent case in which one member of the jury died, and counsel were put to the trouble of repeating their speeches over again, and the witnesses had to be recalled. The new Clause provides that the verdict shall be given by not less than 10 jurymen, provided that the accused and the prosecutor consent. It seems unfair that an accused person in a criminal trial
should be asked that question at all, because by our ancient law he is already entitled to a verdict by 12 of his fellow citizens, and he should not be asked to accept a verdict of 10 or 11. I cannot imagine that any criminal on trial for a capital offence would agree to what is now suggested in the case of a juror falling ill, and he would naturally refuse to be tried by a jury of 10 or 11.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have explained that any prisoner charged with a capital offence has the full right to say whether he should be tried by 10 or 12 jurymen.

Mr. GATES: I cannot imagine that a man on trial for a criminal offence would agree to such a course for one moment. My Clause provides for two extra jurors to be sworn to take the place, if necessary, of any member of the jury who may through illness be unable to complete his or her duties. The new Clause to which the hon. Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Grotrian) has put his name is on the whole, perhaps, rather a better proposal than mine, because it gives the learned Judge the right to say when the two extra jurors shall be sworn. It seems to me that all our views are the same, and we all feel that it would be fairer to have two extra jurors in the box during a protracted or difficult criminal trial. The Home Secretary thinks that this would be a severe strain upon jurymen.
I think we all fully appreciate the valuable work done by those who serve upon our juries in the public service, but after all, when jurymen are summoned to the Court at the present time, a great many more than the 12 required to form the jury are summoned. I suppose that as a rule at least 18 or 20 jurymen are summoned to the Court, although only 12 are empanelled and sworn, and the remainder who have been summoned frequently have to wait about in the Court until the Judge sees fit to discharge them. Therefore, I cannot see that there is any great hardship upon jurors by two extra men or women being sworn, although they are not put into the jurybox, with the other 12, although they may have to stay in Court during the whole of the trial. I admit that in the course of a long trial the two extra
jurors would have to be locked up with the 12 jurymen in whose hands the decision of the case rests.
I would like to point out that the system I am advocating is not a new one, because in France at the present time two extra jurors are always sworn, and 14 are always sworn in a French criminal case. I would also like to point out that in Scotland 15 jurors are always sworn, and, if the citizens of France and Scotland have not found it a hardship, I find it difficult to believe that the citizens of England would find it a hardship to have 14 jurymen sworn in a protracted criminal case. In these days of mixed juries, there is much more likelihood of a member of a jury being taken ill, and I think something should be done to meet this position. I do not like to move my Amendment, but I really do not feel that the Clause proposed by the Home Secretary meets the position. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hull will move his Clause as an amendment and, if he does, I shall be quite willing to give him my support.

Mr. GROTRIAN: I think we are all anxious to achieve the same object, and my only objection to the new Clause which has been moved by the Home Secretary is that it will not effect the purpose he has in view. Before it can come into operation, both sides have to agree in writing that they will accept the verdict of the 11 or 10 jurors in the case. Anyone who has taken part in criminal cases, and especially murder cases, will know that you will never get any such consent from the defendant. If a man is being tried for his life with 12 jurymen, he has 12 chances, and, naturally, he would not agree to either 10 or 11 jurymen. Therefore, in no case of such gravity as a murder case would you over get anybody to agree to go on with the case with 10 or 11 jurymen. The Home Secretary has said that both sides must agree in writing before this course can be taken. In such circumstances, when there was an objection, everybody would know that it was the defence that had objected, because in no circumstances would counsel for the Crown object to going on with 10 or 11 jurymen. It would be perfectly well known to jurors and every man in Court that it was the defence that objected and not the prosecution.
7.0 P.M.
We are apparently allowed to discuss Clauses similar to the one which has been moved without trespassing outside order, so therefore perhaps I may be allowed to say one or two words upon the Clause which I myself have got down on the Paper with my learned Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Sir H. Curtis-Bennett). That Clause proposes that where the Judge thinks it is necessary, but not in all cases like the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for North Kensington (Mr. Gates)—and of course Judge and counsel always know pretty well whether a case is going to last five hours or five days—two extra jurymen should be sworn. The Home Secretary has said, I think, if I quote his figure aright, that it will add 16 per cent. to the number of juries. I do not know how his calculation is made up, but I should say that it will do nothing of the sort, because it is only very seldom, only when the case is going to be a very long one, that the Judge thinks it necessary to swear these two extra jurymen. Supposing it did add 16 per cent., what has that to do with the point whether a man is to get justice in the long run in a better way than he can obtain it in any other way? I do not think that the point will really carry very great weight. Then it is said: How are you going to find room in the Court? I am perfectly well aware that there is only room for 12 jurymen in the box, but surely room can be found for two more? As my hon. Friend the Member for North Kensington has said, there are always about 40 jurors summoned at these trials at thy Assizes, and they are all sitting in Court in case they are wanted. They are listening, and in any case they have got to sit and listen, and the only difference is that two of them will be selected, and will be brought forward to a little more prominent position, and sworn to listen to the. evidence instead of listening to it unsworn. I think those really are small matters, and are not objections to our proposals.
There is one difficulty, and I admit it at once, that will be found in murder cases. The jury in a murder case is always locked up. They are not allowed to disperse for the night, and a question will arise whether you should lock up these two extra jurors with the 12 or whether it would be bringing the jury
into communication with two outside people who turned out, eventually, not to be jurors, and whether that would be objectionable. There, again, surely that is a matter for arrangement. If you had to lock up these two extra people separately I do not see that any great harm would be done. All these points are really matters of detail, and they do not go to the substance of the case. It has already been pointed out that in France and in Scotland you do already get extra jurors sworn, and I do not see why we should not do the same thing here. I do not think my right hon. Friend's new Clause will achieve the object that he and we have in view. One knows how difficult and almost impossible it is to get a defendant even in a civil action to agree to take the verdict of the majority or less than a full number, and I believe that in criminal trials, especially in serious cases like murders, no counsel dare advise his client to take the verdict of 10 or 11 men when ho might have 12, and therefore, for this reason, among others, I certainly do not see that the Home Secretary's Clause will meet the case at all.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: I will say just a few words in regard to this matter. The Clauses standing in my name and the Clauses put down in the names of my hon. Friend, have moved the Home Secretary to try and do something, but I am bound to say that I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for North Kensington (Mr. Gates) has said as to this almost certainly being inoperative in practically every criminal case of any real importance. The objections which he urged to the other Clauses, I think, are not really so great as they will seem to be, and, so far as concerns the question of the difficulty of dealing with two men who may or may not be members of the jury, what I should have suggested would have been that the whole 14 should be treated as being the jury, and that they should all sit together and nobody but the Judge should know who were the extra jurymen or women. He would place their names on a piece of paper and when the jury retired to consider their verdict would direct that those two should be withdrawn. It seems to me chat the Clause in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hull (Mr. Grotrian)
or the one in my name is certainly preferable. Of course, if the Home Secretary, in spite of all we can say to him, prefers his own particular Clause, I am afraid we have got very little to do with it, but to thank him for very small mercies indeed and to hope that when he sees the lack of result of his Clause he may in future years support us in an attempt to get something more on the lines of the Clauses which we have put down.

Sir PATRICK HASTINGS: I am very anxious not to be thought to be seeking to put any hindrance in the passing of this Bill, because I highly approve of its main provisions, and I have not the slightest desire to do that. But in regard to this Clause I must say, quite frankly, that I do not like it, and I do not think it really has been very fully considered. May I suggest to the Home Secretary one or two reasons why I think that? He has told us that one of the grave difficulties he sees is the possibility of the defence being prejudiced by reason of their refusal to accede to a suggestion that they should dispense with one or two members of the jury, and he suggests that this should be done secretly. It is quite true that assent, to be effective, must be in writing, but there is no indication in the Clause of any desire for secrecy. A Judge or anyone else at a certain moment might think he was acting entirely in the spirit of the Act if he merely said to counsel appearing for the prisoner, "Now do you consent or do you not consent to going on with 10 jurymen?" Therefore, the very danger that the Home Secretary seems to have in mind is still here. Then there is another danger, and a very serious one. If it really be desired that a defendant should not be prejudiced by this Clause, there could not be any reason at all why it should not be provided in it that the same 10 jurymen should not be empanelled to try the case. If two more jurymen would have to have the whole case put before them again, it takes no longer to put it before 10 new jurymen as well. I should like to say that I should have been glad if I could have said that I preferred the other Clauses.
There is a theory with young men at the Bar that they really can tell what a jury sometimes is thinking, and they address themselves particularly to certain members of the jury. I look with the
greatest anxiety upon the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Sir H. Curtis-Bennett) addressing a jury of 12 in the box and having two others. who may be members, in the Court, and trying to keep one eye on the real jury and the other on the other two. Cannot the Home Secretary leave this until next year? There is no real reason why it should go in this time. I think there is a great deal to be said for some amendment under proper safeguards. Sometimes a defendant is represented by counsel who may be expensive, and it may be that all the resources of the family have been directed towards instructing that counsel, and the defendant may be deterred at the thought of having to begin all over again. We must not sweep this consideration aside as though there were not something to be said for it from the point of view of the defence. As, like the Home Secretary, I really am concerned in passing this Bill, which I believe, in the main, to be a good one, apart from some little difficulties such as we have in mind, I would urge him to consider whether this Clause might not be brought up at a later date, when we can, perhaps, combine on both sides of the House to put in a Clause in such a form as will be acceptable to all.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: By the leave of the House I may, perhaps, reply to what has been said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir P. Hastings). I realise the fairness with which he has met this case, and the way in which he has demolished all the evidence on my own side, but this matter has been hanging over us since 1913, and it is time that something was done. May I suggest that the House should give us this Clause to-night, and that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should see me and suggest any Amendment which would make for greater security for the defendant, because I am quite as anxious as he is that the prisoner should not be in any sense of the word damnified by this Clause. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman can suggest anything that can be put in when the Bill goes to another place, I shall be glad to give him that assurance.

Sir GERALD HOHLER: This Clause never appeared in Committee, it was never discussed by the Committee, and I
entirely concur in the arguments of the right hon. and learned Member for Wallsend (Sir P. Hastings). This cannot be vital to the Bill. Is it possible that the Home Office, who have had this Bill before them for some time, and have considered every amendment of the law that they thought reasonable and proper, can have escaped such an obvious question as this? Is it not true that in fact, while this Bill was in Committee upstairs, it so happened that in some case, which had been more or less protracted, a juryman was taken ill, and that the Judge then suggested that it would be desirable that the law should be altered? It is all very well for learned Judges to throw out these ideas, but they do not legislate. This ought to have been discussed in Committee. When my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary opened his case for this Clause, he clearly stated that this would be done out of Court, and that the jury would be ignorant of it, but would that happen as a matter of fact? No such safeguard of any sort is contained in the Clause at all, and it is perfectly obvious that the Judge could then and there say:
Mr. So-and-so, will you go on with 11 or 10 jurymen, as the case may be?
If this had been a real evil, if justice had suffered, surely attention would have been called to it earlier, and we should have had it in the Bill. What, after all, does it really come to? It comes to this, that a new jury is empanelled to try the case; probably the 10 jurymen remaining are empanelled as part of the new jury, and two additional jurymen are sworn. The evidence is gone over quite shortly, putting them fully in possession of it, and they have the 10 other

members of the jury on whom they can rely to tell them exactly what has happened on any point on which they may not be quite clear.

I do ask the Home Secretary not to press this Clause. I think that every consideration should be given to the prisoner, and I want to point out that the Crown is not really concerned in this matter. Every additional juryman is an additional chance in favour of the prisoner. He may be the one who might have disagreed with the others, when there would be no verdict, and there might be a new trial the result of which might prove to be an acquittal. In my judgment we ought not to reduce the number of the jury. Ours is not the Scottish system, where they decide by a majority, and I would ask my right hon. Friend to consider whether he will not take the Bill as it came from the Committee as regards this point, and not try, at this late stage, to force through a Clause which does not carry out that which he said it did, and which, to my mind, might deprive the prisoner of one of the rights which he has, namely, to be tried by a jury of 12 of his countrymen. As to the idea that jurors lose time, that is necessarily involved in every case of trial by jury. There is not the least difficulty in getting another jury. I believe I am right in saying that the panel never includes fewer than 36 for petty juries, and, therefore, there is no trouble at all. Accordingly, I would ask my right hon. Friend to maintain the law as it is.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 248; Noes, 97.

Division No. 359.]
AYES.
[7.21 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Christie, J. A.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Clarry, Reginald George


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Brass, Captain W.
Clayton, G. C.


Albery, Irving James
Brassey, Sir Leonard
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Briggs, J. Harold
Cooper, A. Duff


Atkinson, C.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Couper, J. B.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Cowan, O. M. (Scottish Universities)


Balniel, Lord
Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)
Craig, Ernest (Chester. Crewe)


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Buckingham, Sir H.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Burman, J. B.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry


Bethell, A.
Campbell, E. T.
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Betterton, Henry B.
Cassels, J. D.
Dalkeith, Earl of


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Dalziel, Sir Davison


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Homel Hempst'd)


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Rye, F. G.


Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Salmon, Major I.


Drewe, C.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Lamb, J. O.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Savery, S. S.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Shaw, Capt. W. w. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Fenby, T. D.
Loder, J. de V.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Finburgh, S.
Looker, Herbert William
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Fleming, D. P.
Lord, Walter Greaven
Smithers, Waldron


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Forrest, W.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Foster, Sir Harry S.
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Frece, Sir Walter de
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Ganzoni, Sir John
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)


Gee, Captain R.
McLean, Major A.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Storry Deans, R.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Goff, Sir Park
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Gower, Sir Robert
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Grace, John
Margesson, Captain D.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Meller, R. J.
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Hall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. (Dulwich)
Merriman, F. B.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Meyer, Sir Frank
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Hanbury, C.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Tinne, J. A.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Waddington, R.


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Haslam, Henry C.
Murchison, C. K.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Hawke, John Anthony
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Warrender, Sir Victor


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsay and Otley)


Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxfd, Henley)
Newman, Sir R H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Watts, Dr. T.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Oakley, T.
Wells, S. R.


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Herbert. Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Pease, William Edwin
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Herbert, S. (York, N. R., scar. & Wh'by)
Pennefather, Sir John
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Hilton, Cecil
Penny, Frederick George
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Perring, William George
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Holt, Captain H. P.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Philipson, Mabel
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Honkins, J. W. W.
Pielou, D. P.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Pownall, Lieut. Colonel Assheton
Wolmer, Viscount


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Preston, William
Womersley, W. J.


Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Price, Major C. W. M.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Radford, E. A.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Hurd, Percy A.
Raine, W.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Hurst. Gerald B.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Rawson, Alfred Cooper
Worthington-Evans,. Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Remer, J. R.



Jacob, A. E.
Rentoul, G. S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Jephcott, A. R.
Rice, Sir Frederick
Major Sir Harry Barnston and


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Major Cone.


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Cluse, W. S.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hall. G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Compton, Joseph
Hardle, George D.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Connolly, M.
Hastings, Sir Patrick


Baker, Walter
Cove, W. G.
Hayday, Arthur


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Duncan, C.
Hayes, John Henry


Barnes, A.
Edwards. C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Henderson. T. (Glasgow)


Barr, J.
Gillett, George M.
Hirst, G. H.


Batey, Joseph
Gosling, Harry
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy


Broad, F. A.
Greenall, T.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)


Bromley, J.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Buchanan, G.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Kelly, W. T.


Cape, Thomas
Grundy, T. W.
Lansbury, George


Charleton, H. C.
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Lawson, John James


Clowes, S.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Lee, F.




Lowth, T.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Lunn, William
Sitch, Charles H.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Weir, L. M.


Mackinder, W.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Westwood, J.


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Whiteley, W.


March, S.
Snell, Harry
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Montague, Frederick
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Naylor, T. E.
Stamford, T. W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Palin, John Henry
Stephen, Campbell
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Paling, W.
Sutton, J. E.
Windsor, Walter


Potts, John S.
Taylor, R. A.
Wright, W.


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Riley, Ben
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)



Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Thurtle, E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Scrymgeour, E.
Tinker, John Joseph
Mr. T. Kennedy and Mr. Allen


Scurr, John
Townend, A. E.
Parkinson.


Sexton, James
Viant, S. P.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Election of chairman or deputy-chairman of quarter sessions to he subject to approval of Lord Chancellor.)

No justice of the peace shall act as chair man or deputy-chairman of any general quarter sessions of the peace for any county unless his election by the justices of the peace for the county has been approved in writing by the Lord Chancellor:

Provided always that nothing in this Section shall prevent any person from so acting who was elected before the passing of this Act.—[Sir Henry Slesser.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir H. SLESSER: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I think this is a proposal that is very much overdue. There really is no reason at all why, when we have decided to have qualified lawyers to sit as Recorders in boroughs, we should leave the important functions of County Quarter Sessions to the mere accident of a vote. I raised this question on the Second Reading of the Bill, and was told by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Measure that he would give a courteous consideration to my suggestion. I have no reason to suppose that that courteous consideration has not been given, therefore I am really moving in order to learn from the Government what decision they have come to on this matter. It might well be said that it is difficult for the Lord Chancellor to tell whether a particular person who had been proposed to be elected as Chairman of Quarter Sessions was or was not suitable, and that he has not at his command the necessary information to come to a decision on that point, but I really think the difficulties are exaggerated.
Surely, while preserving to the Quarter Session their ancient right to choose their own Chairman, the Lord Chancellor is not devoid of such assistance as to the competence of the sort of persons who are likely to be elected, but that he could, through the usual channels, inform himself whether the person was or was not likely to be a competent person. I always took the view that the mere fact that the matter had to go for the approval of the Lord Chancellor would make the Quarter Sessions very careful not to select an incompetent or unsuitable person.
It is no good saying, as some hon. Members may, that Quarter Sessions can be relied upon to choose competent persons to act as chairmen. Experience has shown that they cannot always be so relied upon. There are all sorts of considerations which urge Justices at Quarter Sessions to elect particular chairmen. A man may be a very competent sportsman, he may have lived for a very long time in the district, he may be altogether a very good fellow, but it does not follow from that that he is going to make a good chairman for dealing with different points of law to address a jury at these Courts. As it happens, in this Bill, side by side with my proposal, there is the Government's proposal very considerably to extend the powers of Quarter Sessions, and I am sure hon. Members will realise that the chairman of Quarter Sessions has the duty of directing juries upon the law, and the suggestion that a person is competent to direct another upon the law when he has no law himself is like the blind leading the blind, and it frequently has happened that the blind have led the blind in Quarter Sessions, and that has involved that the victim has had to be taken out in the Court of Criminal Appeal. It really
behoves the Government to point out what argument there is against laying down sound qualifications for a man who has to direct a jury, not on facts, but on the law that he has to administer. It would never do to have Judges popularly elected, at least that is my view, though I believe in certain parts of America the opposite experiment has been tried, and has sometimes failed. But everyone is agreed that that would not be a good method of carrying on judicial work. Yet that is precisely the method which, by this accident of leaving Quarter Sessions entirely to control the election of their own chairmen, we employ at Quarter Sessions. I have heard people who condemn the idea of electing Judges, approve of the election of chairmen of Quarter Sessions in counties, and they are exactly the same people.
The mere accident that they do not receive a salary I am sure does not affect the question in the least. They are in fact discharging a judicial function. They are performing important judicial functions, and under this Bill they are to perform even more important judicial functions than they have ever done before. I hope, therefore, I shall not be met with a mere negative, and if there is any defects in my proposal, the purpose of which is not so much to give the Chancellor or my right hon. Friend or any other potentate control over these matters, but to see that some standard of qualification is laid down for the chairmen of Quarter Sessions—I hope it will be explained why, if my proposal is unsuitable, in the interval which has elapsed since the Second Reading, some other method has not been devised by the Government. It is the business of the Government to discover methods for dealing with this matter. We cannot go on increasing the work of Quarter Sessions, increasing the difficulties of their chairmen and the complications of the law which the chairman has to consider and on which he has to direct the jury, and at the same time be indifferent as to the capacity of the chairmen who have to do the work. And whether the proposal be rejected this year year or not it is inevitable that the time will come, when we are giving Quarter Sessions something which formerly used to be exercised solely by a Commissioner of Assize and a Judge of the High Court, when we must say,
"This machine must be efficient. We must have a person for this work no less competent than the person who will have to do it by the mere accident that the offence happened to be committed within a borough." If I commit a crime within a borough, I know that I shall be brought before one of my hon. and learned friends at the Bar and receive, no doubt, all the consideration which so competent a person could give me. If I happen to commit my crime in a country district, I shall have no such guarantee. That seams to be an indefensible position. I hope, therefore, the Government will really consider what can be done in the matter. There is no difficulty in finding persons absolutely suited for the work. In every county there must be many justices who are fit to be chairmen of Quarter Sessions. My proposal leaves untouched the right which all of us who are justices would cherish to choose our own chairman. It does not appoint a chairman from the central authority and put him over us. It merely asks that, while leaving us the right to choose our chairman, there shall be a power vested in the central authority, the Lord Chancellor, to see that we do not make an utterly incompetent choice.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to second the Motion.
It has always been the ambition of my life to be a Justice of the Peace and sit in Quarter Sessions, but I am afraid my well-known views on law and order will for ever debar me from that distinction. But I have studied the whole history of our system of local jurisdiction, and I remember years and years ago, before my hon. and learned Friend was a Law Officer of the Crown, the old struggles there were to get Stipendiary Magi6trate3 instead of Justices of the Peace on our borough benches, and in those days everyone with an ounce of understanding of the question supported the idea of sub stituting for the great unpaid men who might be paid, but who, at any rate, knew their business. This new Clause is a small step in the same direction. It says that, at any rate, those people who are selected to be Chairmen of Quarter Sessions shall have the imprimatur of the Lord Chancellor that they know something about the law The ordinary Justice—there must be many even on the benches behind me—does not know much about the law in the sense that the Law
Officers know the law. He may have a rough-and-ready method of getting at justice, but in the Chairman of Quarter Sessions you want to have a man who understands the question as put before him by trained lawyers. At present, accident decides who is to be the supreme Judge in Quarter Sessions. By this Clause we ask that when Quarter Sessions select their Chairmen and Deputy-Chairmen they shall submit those names to the Lord Chancellor and get his approval in writing of their fitness to be Chairmen. I do not think that is asking too much. If you think of the fights we had in the old clays to secure Stipendiary Magistrates, and that this is a small step in the same direction for the country districts, I think we shall have considerable support for the Clause on all sides of the House.
One other point. My right hon. Friend is a great historical student, and he will remember that in the old days when justices of the peace were first appointed, in the early days of the century, there were only two in Staffordshire, for instance. They gradually increased in number, getting in the country knights to the number of sometimes a dozen for a county like Staffordshire. Then the Government not merely added to the County Bench the knights and the squires and the landed gentry of the county, but they put on two or three justices of the King's Bench or of the Common Bench, and they put them as being of the quorum who were the trained justices, and they stipulated that where a justice sat on the body of Quarter Sessions there should be a sufficient number of the quorum who knew something about justice on the Bench to make their action legal. Unfortunately as times went on every justice, however ignorant he might be of law, was described as of the quorum, until now every justice of the peace is of the quorum. Exactly the same principle that urged our ancestors to insist on having a small element of trained people on the County Bench should at present urge us to see that the Chairmen and Deputy Chairmen of Quarter Sessions are also men who may be mere country gentlemen, but who at any rate have shown by long experience on the Bench, or by early training for the Bar, that they are fitted to be justices—as fitted as stipendiary magistrates are in the Borough Courts.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I should like to disabuse the minds of the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) on one point. He is already a justice of the peace, and as a Privy Councillor he can sit on any County Bench. The Government have considered this question, as I promised the hon. and learned Member for South Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) on the Committee stage, and, on the whole, after the full consultation which I have had, we cannot see our way to accept this Amendment. It is all very well to say that the Government ought to do this, that and the other, but the hon. and learned Member has not given us any real evidence that the present system is bad. If he could come forward and tell us that the Court of Criminal Appeal had made remarks time after time about the stupidity of chairmen of Quarter Sessions, or if he could tell us that the number of appeals from the chairmen of Quarter Sessions was much greater than the number of appeals from Recorders, there would be something in his case. He has not attempted to do that. He has merely told us that he wants the Lord Chancellor to decide this question of the appointment of chairman. After a free election has taken place by his own brother magistrates, who know the man far better than the Lord Chancellor can know him. the hon. and learned member desires that the Lord Chancellor should have the right to say, "You, gentlemen, who have sat on the County Bench for years with Mr. So-and-so, and who know him as a man, as a lawyer, he may have been a High Court Judge, have elected him as chairman of your bench, with the full responsibility which rests upon you of electing the best man. I, the Lord Chancellor, am called upon, not knowing the man and not knowing the circumstances of the Bench, to approve or veto your choice."
Consider who are the chairmen of Quarter Sessions at the present time. Several are His Majesty's Judges, several Recorders, several County Court Judges, several stipendary magistrates, several practising barristers, several barristers who have been called to the Bar but who do not actually practice, and several others are experienced as magistrates either in administration at home or who have served well in great administrative duties in the overseas Dominions
and Colonies. Those are the kind of men who are appointed chairmen of Quarter Sessions. They have done their work remarkably well. There is no complaint in regard to them. The right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme says, quite frankly, that this is a step towards paying the chairmen of Quarter Sessions. He says that he would like to put them into the same position as Recorders or Stipendiary Magistrates. After all the experience I have had, I would not be prepared, and I am sure that after the experience of most hon. Members they would not be prepared, to support a proposal to pay the chairmen of Quarter Sessions.
I think it would be far better than asking the Lord Chancellor to veto the appointment of chairmen—a very invidious thing—to put the appointment of the chairmen altogether into the hands of the Lord Chancellor. But that is a very serious position. As Home Secretary I have the appointment of the Stipendary Magistrates in London and the appointment of Recorders throughout the country, and it is a very grave addition to the labours of the Home Secretary. If you are going to put a similar burden in regard to the appointment of chairmen of Quarter Sessions on the shoulders of the Lord Chancellor, I am bound to say on behalf of the Lord Chancellor, with his assent and at his request, that it is a burden that he does not wish to be put upon his shoulders, and it is a burden which he does not think he could adequately carry out. In dealing with the appointment of Recorders, one knows from one's past experience a good deal about members of the Bar, and one can consult the Attorney-General or the Lord Chief Justice. Any Judge is only too pleased— here I am giving away the secrets of the Home Office—to place his experience at the disposal of the Home Secretary, and it is possible for the Home Secretary to pick out from the barristers of the circuit men who make admirable Recorders.
You are not asking the Lord Chancellor to pick a man out of the barristers of the circuit, because you are not asking that the appointment should be limited to barristers; you are asking the Lord Chancellor to exercise a most extraordinary decision, namely, to pick out from amongst a body, it may be of 30,
40 or more local justices, whom he does not know and whom he can have no means of knowing, the man whom he thinks best fitted for the post, and to veto the man whom the men on the spot think best. I do suggest to the House, with every desire to meet any reasonable proposal made by hon. Members opposite —I agree that this is a reasonable Clause to put down for discussion—for the improvement of the Bill, that the proposer of the Clause has not made out the first condition that it is desirable should be made out clearly, namely, that the Quarter Sessions do not administer justly as between man and man. I believe they do. I believe they are an admirable tribunal. I am sure from the inquiries I have made that they are one of the best tribunals in the country. They are less over-ruled, perhaps in the Court of Criminal Appeal than any other tribunal. I think hon. Members in all quarters of the House will agree with me that there is a very strong feeling of satisfaction at the way in which justice is administered in Quarter Sessions. That being so, I ask the House not to accept the Clause which has been moved.

Sir HERBERT NIELD: I will supply the information which the Home Secretary was unable to give in regard to appeals. I put a question to the Home Office in which I asked for information as to convictions which had been quashed or where sentences had been altered or where the appeal had been dismissed. They could only give me the figures for 1924. From this return, I find that the number of convictions or sentences quashed by the Court of Criminal Appeal from High Court Judges sitting at Assizes were 21, from County Quarter Sessions 13, and from Borough Quarter Sessions three. Where convictions or sentences were quashed and some other conviction or sentence substituted, there were eight cases affecting the High Court Judges at Assizes, 11 affecting County Quarter Sessions, and 10 affecting Borough Quarter Sessions. The appeals dismissed were, from the Assizes 21, County Quarter Sessions 12, Borough Quarter Sessions three. There were 391 applications for leave to appeal. It may be that in the cases where leave was given they would come on afterwards. They are given as a separate figure.
I am very glad and relieved to hear the commendation from the mouth of the Home Secretary of these unpaid chairmen and deputy-chairmen of Quarter Sessions. They have done their work for the sake of serving their county, without fee or reward. Not even a railway fare is paid to them or any incidental expense in connection with their work. The figures which I have quoted for 1924 justify the words of commendation from the Home Secretary. It is suggested that these appointments should be an additional burden cast upon the Lord Chancellor's Department. It could not be done by the Lord Chancellor personally. I think the Lord Chancellor's Department is quite sufficiently looked after in the many directions in which it controls the services of the Law Courts and in other directions. If there is to be any control at all in regard to this matter of Quarter Sessions, it should be exercised by the Home Office. But it is the same thing in the Home Office as in the Lord Chancellor's Department. The House has heard the list of men who occupy these unpaid positions as chairmen of Quarter Sessions, and I am sure that hon. Members having heard that list will be disposed to congratulate the country as a whole on the fact that these men are prepared, voluntarily, to add to their work these duties as chairmen of Quart or Sessions and to discharge them with so much ability.
What is the Lord Chancellor to do? How is he to ascertain whether these men are fit? Before the War, an agitation was started in this House in regard to the appointment of magistrates. Has that benefited the community as a whole? Instead of the Lord Lieutenant appointing magistrates, it is left to the Lord Lieutenant's Advisory Committee. That Advisory Committee sends up the names to the Lord Chancellor and, as a rule, these names are accepted without question. The information is obtained from the members of the Advisory Committee who, in a properly ordered county, are spread over the county, so that they know something of each person whose name is submitted. When these magistrates have been appointed they elect their chairman. If one could have access to all the names which the Home Secretary has before him one would probably find very few of these country gentlemen who have not had training at the Bar or
have actually practised at the Bar. We should find that they are all men highly respected.
I sincerely hope that the House will stand by the Home Secretary in this matter, and not put upon the Lord Chancellor the invidious duty of vetoing the appointment of, I was going to say, a popularly elected body. The magistrates are now drawn from all members of the community and it is impossible to say that they belong merely to one class. Therefore it is upon the choice that has been made by a popularly selected body that you are asking the Lord Chancellor to exercise a veto. No case has been made out. One would have expected the hon. and learned Member to give the House facts in support of his case. He could not. He only generalised. He will find as he gets into closer intimacy with Quarter Sessions that they are so admirably conducted that he will advocate the permanency of the present system.

8.0 P.M.

Mr. BANKS: The hon. and learned Member who moved this new Clause seemed to have two objects in view. First of all, it appears that he desires to see as chairman of Quarter Sessions somebody in the nature of a qualified lawyer —a sort of system of Recorders. He wants to substitute for the present method what, to him, would be a more satisfactory medium. My first answer to him is that the new Clause does not fulfil, nor even attempt to fulfil, either of the objects which he has in mind. He supported his case by arguments which were not relevant to the Clause. If election is wrong—and the analogy drawn from the popular election of Judges in America is fallacious, because nobody here would suggest that you should have a popular election of magistrates, but when your magistrates are already appointed it is a different thing to leave them to elect their own presidents—but if election is wrong the hon. and learned Member's case obviously is to propose that it should be abolished and that the appointment of the chairman of Quarter Sessions should be left to the discretion of the Lord Chancellor. The Home Secretary has given an absolutely conclusive reason to show that to leave the selection to the Lord Chancellor would
not be a suitable course to adopt. How is he to obtain the necessary information about the qualifications of these people.
Again, the second object apparently was to have qualified lawyers as chairmen of Quarter Sessions. If that is my hon. and learned Friend's object, why does he not say so? Why does he not provide that the Lord Chancellor must select gentlemen who have certain legal qualifications? The answer is that if there does happen to be a trained lawyer among the members of the county bench, almost invariably his colleagues on that bench are glad to select him and he is ready to accept the position. On the other hand, if there does not happen to be a lawyer, we know very well that, if some difficult legal question arises, there is always a trained lawyer in the clerk, and it is his duty to advise the bench as to what the law really is. There are other considerations which enter into the selection of the chairman of the county bench. It is not merely a knowledge of law and not merely that he is a man of experience. It is the general personality and characteristics of the man which have to be taken into account. He might be a good magistrate and not necessarily a good chairman. He might not have sufficient force of character or have sufficient weight with his colleagues to be suitable as a good chairman. These qualifications can be known only to those who have sat and worked with him and seen his act as a magistrate.
Finally, the suggested New Clause does not give the Lord Chancellor the power to make inquiries and select the name of the man who, he thinks, is most suitable, but puts upon him the very odious and invidious task of vetoing the selection. What would happen in practice I suppose is that, in the big majority of cases, the appointment would be confirmed without rejection. But where the appointment was not confirmed, what a stigma would be cast upon the gentleman who would be pronounced to be unacceptable. The objects which the hon. and learned Member has in view are not achieved by the Clause, and none of the arguments which he has employed are consistent with the objects or wording of it.

Mr. GROTRIAN: I support this Clause. It is practically impossible for a layman to sum up a complicated case in a charge to a jury. I have never yet heard it done
well by a layman. Therefore, I think that as time goes on there will be an insistent demand that we shall have professional chairmen. It has been said that that may lead to your wanting to have chairmen like recorders who are paid; I do not think so. What do you pay your recorders? Sums such as £60 a year or something absurd of that sort. You would get far better men when you do not pay them, probably, than if you do pay them, in cases of that kind. But I cannot help thinking that some of those who have spoken on this Clause do not realise fully the difficulty in which Quarter Sessions are sometimes placed. In some counties there is an absurd rule that the chairmanship should go by seniority. That is to say not when a man is of use, when he is in middle life or when he is young, but when he is getting old and deaf. This Clause will get Quarter Sessions out of that difficulty, and for this reason, that no longer will Quarter Sessions consider themselves bound to elect the senior man. They will not dare to do it if they know the Lord Chancellor has the power of vetoing the appointment, and it will strengthen the hands of the justices at Quarter Sessions very much in rejecting the claims of mere seniority and inefficiency.
I am well aware that the work of Chairmen of Quarter Sessions is most admirably done in some counties. But there are exceptions, and we want to bring those counties into line. It seems to me that this Clause will go a long way towards helping to bring that about. My own county, which I know most about, is admirably served. We have three King's Counsel, and other admirable Chairmen or Deputy-Chairmen of Quarter Sessions. But that is not so in other counties. I know counties in which the reverse is the case, and in which the position is most unsatisfactory. Great qualities are demanded from the Chairman of Quarter Sessions. Perhaps I may be allowed to quote something which would apply to him admirably.
He must he shrewd, sensible and good-tempered. His voice must be strong, clear and musical. He must be quiet, patient and without an atom of conceit.
Those are not the qualifications of a Chairman of Quarter Sessions. They are taken from the immortal Mr. Jorrocks's advertisement for a huntsman, but still I think they apply to a great
extent to the Chairmen of Quarter Sessions. If this Clause is passed, it will get magistrates at Quarter Sessions out of the great difficulty of always having to appoint the senior man, whether he is suitable or not.

Mr. CECIL WILSON: The right hon. Gentleman has told us of the Quarter Sessions whose chairman had certain qualifications. Would he give us the list of those Quarter Sessions for which per-

sons with those qualifications were not appointed?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I cannot give the list at this moment, but if a question to me be put down, I will answer it.

Question put, "That, the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes. 101; Noes, 214.

Division No. 360.]
AYES.
[8.12 p.m.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillabro')
Hardle, George D.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hastings, Sir Patrick
Short. Alfred (Wednesbury)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Hayday, Arthur
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Baker, Walter
Hirst, G. H.
Sitch, Charles H.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Barnes, A.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Smillie, Robert


Barr, J.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Snell, Harry


Batey, Joseph
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Kelly, W. T.
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Broad, F. A.
Kennedy, T.
Stamford, T. W.


Bromley, J.
Kenyon, Barnet
Stephen, Campbell


Buchanan, G.
Lansbury, George
Sutton, J. E.


Cape, Thomas
Lawson, John James
Taylor, R. A.


Charieton, H. C.
Lee, F.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Clowes, S.
Lowth, T.
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Cluse, W. S.
Lunn, William
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Mackindar, W.
Thurtle, E.


Compton, Joseph
MacLaren, Andrew
Tinker, John Joseph


Connolly, M.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Townend, A. E.


Cove, W. G.
March, S.
Viant, S. P.


Dalton, Hugh
Montague, Frederick
Wallhead, Richard C.


Duncan, C.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Murnin, H.
Weir, L. M.


Gillett, George M.
Naylor, T. E.
Westwood, J.


Gosling, Harry
Oliver, George Harold
Whiteley, W.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Palin, John Henry
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Greenall, T.
Paling, W.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Potts, John S.
Williams. T. (York, Don Valley)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wilton, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Grotrian, H. Brent
Riley, Ben
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grundy, T. W.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Robinson, W. C.(Yorks, W. R., Elland)



Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Scrymgeour, E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hall, F. (York, W. R, Normanton)
Scurr, John
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Sexton, James
Hayes.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Drewe, C.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Burman, J. B.
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Albery, Irving James
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Elliot, Captain Walter E.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Everard, W. Lindsay


Atkinson, C.
Cassels, J. D.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Balfour, George (Hampstaad)
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Fanshawe Commander G. D.


Balniel, Lord
Clarry, Reginald George
Finburgh, S.


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Clayton, G. C.
Fleming, D. P.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Forrest, W.


Berry, Sir George
Cooper, A. Duff
Foster, Sir Harry S.


Bethell, A.
Cope, Major William
Frece, Sir Walter de


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Couper, J. B.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Bird, Sir R. S. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Ganzoni, Sir John


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Gates, Percy


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Gee, Captain R.


Brass, Captain W.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Grace, John


Brigas, J. Harold
Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Gretton, Colonel John


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Dalziel, Sir Davison
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Hanbury, C.


Brown, Maj. D. C.(N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Haslam, Henry C.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)


Hawke, John Anthony
McLean, Major A.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Shepperson, E. W.


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Smithers, Waldron


Hennexy, Major J. R. G.
Margesson, Capt. D.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Herbert Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Meller, R. J.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)


Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Merriman, F. B.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Hilton, Cecil
Meyer, Sir Frank
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Storry Deans, R.


Holt, Capt. H. P.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Nicholson. O. (Westminster)
Tinne, J. A.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Hurd, Percy A.
Oakley, T.
Waddington, R.


Hurst, Gerald B.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Pease, William Edwin
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Pennefather, Sir John
Watts, Dr. T.


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Penny, Frederick George
Wells, S. R.


Jacob, A. L.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Jephcott, A. R.
Perring, William George
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Pielou, D. P.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Preston, William
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).
Price, Major C. W. M.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Radford, E. A.
Winby, Colonel L. P.


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Raine, W.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Knox, Sir Alfred
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Lamb, J. O.
Rawson, Alfred Cooper
Wise, Sir Fredric


Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.
Remer, J. R.
Wolmer, Viscount


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Remnant, Sir James
Womersley, W. J.


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Rye, F. G.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Loder, J. de V.
Salmon, Major I.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Lord, Walter Greaves-
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)



Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Sandeman, A. Stewart
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Captain Hacking and Captain


MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Savery, S. S.
Viscount Curzon.

CLAUSE 1.—(Probation officers.)

Mr. JOHN GUEST: I beg to move, in page 2, line 2, to leave out from the word "be" to the end of the Subsection, and to insert instead thereof the words
agreed upon between the committee and the local authority liable to defray that salary, or, failing agreement, as may be determined by the Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury.
I was hopeful that the Homo Secretary would have been so convinced by the modesty and the sense of the Amendment that he would have accepted it without placing upon us the obligation even of explaining it. The object of the Amendment is to safeguard the interests of the ratepayers in the fixing of the salary of the probation officers. At present the county councils have the authority for fixing the salary of the probation officers, and the responsibility of finding the money. Speaking of the West Riding of Yorkshire, which I know more particularly, I do not think that the
Home Secretary can say that the county council has neglected to fix a fair figure or that it has not done its duty to the probation officers. On the contrary, I claim for the West Riding that the county council has carried out the scale suggested by the Home Office some years ago. It has tried to co-operate with the Justices who make the appointments, and have done so in an amicable way, which has tended to the welfare of the probation officers. That has been and is the position. But the Bill contains a provision which, from my point of view as a representative of a county council, is entirely indefensible. It proposes to maintain the powers of appointment with the Committee of Justices and then to confer upon the Justices the sole power of fixing the salary.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Not sole power.

Mr. GUEST: The right hon. Gentleman's point is that they must consult him, and that he will, if necessity arises,
receive representations from the local authorities. But in effect the Justices have the sole power, and the local authority, which has to find the money, will be in the position of having to go cap in hand to the Home Secretary in order to raise objections. My position, and that of most of the democratic organisations throughout the country, is that where taxation is involved, where money had to be raised from the rates, there shall be some representation upon the spending authority. In the West Riding we are far from having sufficient confidence in the Justices to think that they are the be6t authority to decide what burden shall be placed on the ratepayers. We have more confidence in the county council. We think that the county council knows more about the necessities of the case and is more likely to deal fairly with the matter than is a body of the Justices. We appeal to the Home Secretary to retrace what we regard as a reactionary step.
Surely the time has gone by when this House can take away from representatives of the people the power which they now have over finance, if only in a comparatively small matter, and hand that power over to unelected Justices of the Peace. Our suggestion is a sort of halfway house, or a golden bridge. It says that the magistrates shall have the appointment of the probation officer and the fixing of the salary, and that the local authority, which will have to find 50 per cent. of the salary, shall have a voice in the matter. In the event of failure to agree there would be an appeal to the wisdom of the Home Secretary to determine the matter. The proposal appears to me to be reasonable, sound, and calculated to produce more harmony than the suggestion in the Bill.

Mr. PALING: I beg to second the Amendment. It is a simple proposition, and one with which, I feel sure, the Home Secretary will agree, that he who pays the piper shall at least call the tune or help in calling it. If the Bill as drawn comes into operation the present power of the local authorities will be taken away entirely, except that they can appeal to the Home Secretary; but in view of the fact that the local authority has to find at least 50 per cent. of the money it is not asking too much that it should have 50 per cent. of
the "say" in fixing the salary. It is the desire of the Home Secretary that this Bill should work as smoothly as possible, particularly in regard to the probation officers. One of the ways in which to make it work more smoothly than it otherwise would, is to help local authorities in what they are seeking to achieve by this Amendment and give them some say in the fixing of the salary. I think in the Clause as it stands we are getting away from a principle which is well established and recognised as a good and sound principle, and I feel sure the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would be the last man in the world to seek to get away from that principle. I hope, therefore, that he will at least compromise with us on this proposal.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I always come to the consideration of these matters with an open mind, and the Mover and the Seconder of this Amendment have put their case very cleverly and they have convinced me. May I state quite frankly that what was in my mind in regard to this question was that local authorities might have been very unfair in paying too low salaries to these officers. I wanted to pay them a full living wage, and therefore I kept the power in my own hands. I am convinced, however, that there is something in the point raised by the Mover and the Seconder in regard to the local authority having to pay the half, and therefore I am prepared to accept the Amendment. I hope they will not take it as a sign of weakness on my part—

Mr. GUEST: A sign of wisdom.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: And I hope they will do their best to help me to get the Bill through.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. GUEST: I beg to move in page 2, line 19, at the end, to insert the words
Provided that tins Sub-section shall have effect only in probation areas or combinations of such areas in which the Local Government and Other Officers Superannuation Act, 1922, or other provision for superannuation is in operation. Provided also that the scheme shall not give the right to superannuation of an amount exceeding that payable in accordance with such Act or provision as aforesaid.
I am sincerely indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for the concession which
he has already made and which. I know, will be acceptable to the local authorities. The object of the Amendment which I now propose is to prevent the setting up of a privileged class within the area of any local authority. There are authorities in this country, to-day, I am informed, who, rightly or wrongly— I am not defending their position at all—have not adopted the Superannuation Act and put it into operation, and the consequence of this Clause as it stands would be that probation officers would be entitled to superannuation, even in districts where the bulk of the local government officials were not receiving such treatment. We think that the question of superannuation should be dealt with in a district so as to cover all the officials of that history and that there should not be a privileged class. The design of the Amendment is to prevent probation officers receiving superannuation in any district where the officials generally are not receiving it, and it is further intended to prevent them receiving a larger amount than any scheme in their particular district provides for the bulk of the officials.

Mr. PALING: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: This is a bad Amendment. It seeks to cut down pensions and I am surprised at hon. Members opposite bringing it forward. This Bill establishes a new class of public officer. I know how these probation officers worked under the voluntary system. They were very often underpaid; they had no pensions scheme, and the one thing for which they are hungering is a pension scheme. Now hon. Members opposite suggest that if in some district in England the local authority is so behindhand that it does not pension its own officials, therefore these probation officers in that particular district are not to have pensions, although all the other probation officers in the kingdom have pensions. It will not do.

Mr. GUEST: Would it not be possible to lay down pensions for all the officials if it is possible to lay down pensions for this class?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That has nothing to do with this Bill. I cannot
lay down pensions for town clerks and other officials in this Bill. Sufficient for the day is the goodness thereof. The hon. Member had better withdraw his Amendment. I do not advise him to Vote upon it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 4.—(Employment of agents of voluntary societies us probation officers.)

Mr. WESTWOOD: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
After the expression of sympathy with the probation officers to which we have just listened from the Home Secretary I hope he will accept this proposal. I do not move the deletion of this Clause for the purpose of minimising or throwing any discredit upon the work of the great voluntary organisations in connection with the payment, appointment and duties of probation officers. Such organisations as the Salvation Army, the Church Army and other great organisations are entitled to the very greatest credit for the work they have been doing in trying to save young persons who have gone astray. We in this House are entitled to give those bodies all the credit we can for their splendid work, but my point is that while they may have spent, as was admitted in Committee, approximately £40,000 per year in connection with such work that gave them a right of absolute control over their own probation officers, whereas under this Bill we are now proposing that certain payments should be made from the State, through these voluntary organisations. That, I think, is wrong. The payment should be made direct to the probation officers so that we should have control in connection with these men who have been doing such splendid work, and so that we should be sure that they receive adequate remuneration for their work.

Mr. PALING: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: This is a Clause upon which I, personally, lay very great stress. I have been connected with voluntary organisations of probation officers for well over 30 years. I have had personal knowledge of them, and personal superintendence of them, and to these voluntary societies, the Salvation Army, the Church Army, and others, we owe
really the probation system. Without these missionaries, as they were called in my young days, we should never have had the probation system. What happens is this. Under the provisions of the Bill the magistrates can either appoint their own men, or they can appoint one or two men provided by the voluntary societies. We do not cut out the right of the magistrates to provide their own men. All that we say is, if they have a man who is an agent, say, of the Church of England Temperance Society or the Salvation Army, who they know has been doing good work for four or five years as police court missionary, "For heaven's sake, let them have the option, if they wish, to appoint him probation officer." That is all that we want.
I was speaking the other day at a meeting, and Sir Chartres Biron, the Chief Magistrate of the Metropolitan area, was there. As the House knows, London has an enormous area, and there are in London, I think, 29 probation officers. Every one, I think, is provided by the voluntary society known as the London Police Court Mission, and Sir Chartres Biron, in my hearing, at the meeting at the Mansion House last week, speaking as Chief Magistrate, urged the continuation of what he called, and what I call, the voluntary system. He strongly supported it. He said it had been the means of doing an enormous amount of good in the police courts of the land; and it is not a small thing—I speak on behalf of the Government and the Treasury—when these voluntary organisations provide from £30,000 to £40,000 a year towards the work of this society.
May I put one other point? It is not a bad thing for the missionary, the probation officer, to have some committee outside the Magistrates—who, after all are on the Bench—some committee and a secretary, who have got, perhaps, a boy or a girl at home, connected with their organisation, to whom he can go and talk over the difficulties in different cases. As the House knows, the work of the probation officer is not merely the work done in the police court. He is looking after the boys and girls that come under his care. I think last year in London alone—I speak from memory— there were over 2,000 cases where people had applied for separation orders, which were stopped through the agency of the
probation officers. The Magistrates simply handed them over to the probation officer and said: "See these people, and see if you cannot bring them together again." That is the kind of work that has been done for many years, and I speak as one who has been connected for many years with one of these organisations, in personal, weekly touch with these missionaries. They came to me to discuss their cases with me, and I was able perhaps to suggest something to one or another, speaking from my experience, which they would not have been able to do themselves. I say that that system, which has worked so admirably, and which is the foundation of all the probation work in the country, should not be broken up. We do not impose it on the magistrates. If the magistrates in any district say, "We do not like your voluntary societies, and we will not have the Church Army or the Salvation Army," under the Bill as it now stands they can appoint their own probation officer without any reference to any society at all. All that we ask is that, if they wish to do it, they may appoint a man who is an agent of a voluntary society, and I suggest that he brings together the official and the voluntary work in such a way that it is really admirably adapted, to use an expression which is not too strong, I am sure, for saving a great deal of the wreckage of humanity that is thrown on the police courts, and which, but for the probation officer, might go to prison.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: While I am not disposed to offer any great opposition to this Clause, I should like to ask the Home Secretary how the deletion of the Clause would in any way affect any one of the voluntary societies that already exist. The obvious result of the deletion of the Clause would be to leave the matter exactly as it is, except for this single difference. If the Justices desired, they could appoint one who at the moment happens to be a probation officer employed by a voluntary society, but instead of sending the salary to the voluntary society, as determined by this Clause, they would pay the salary of the probation officer direct to the individual who earned the money. That having been done, is there any reason to believe that the voluntary societies would go out of busi-
ness at all, merely because some outside official body had decided to accept the financial obligation of the probation officer instead of the society having to find his salary? Could not the probation officer receive his salary from official sources and continue to co-operate with the voluntary society just as he did in the past? Could he not, and would he not, benefit by past experience with the voluntary societies in the work that he had to do in the future? Does the right hon. Gentleman really believe that the principle, with an official body—the Government or the county councils in this case—of paying the salary of one of their officers to some third party, is one that he could support in all cases, or that he can support with any degree of enthusiasm even in this case?
With the Mover of the Amendment, I should have to speak in the highest terms of the work of many of these voluntary societies. I think I was pleading with the right hon. Gentleman just prior to the Adjournment in August for an enlarged number of probation officers. I know some of the very valuable work that they have done, but I see no reason, in case this Clause is deleted, why that work should not go on and should not be more effective in future, with the increased number of probation officers, than it has been in the past, when the full financial burden rested upon these voluntary societies. I would suggest that the Clause could be deleted and that probation officers could be appointed exactly in the same way without the Clause as with the Clause. The only difference would be that the officer would receive his salary direct from official sources, instead of from a voluntary society, and he could continue to co-operate with the voluntary society, thereby securing all the assistance that they would be willing to give, and continuing to improve upon the work of the past because the financial burden would be taken from the society and accepted by an official body. The principle of paying Government and county council wages to some other body or society than the person who is actually earning that salary is not one that this House could afford to support in very many cases. I do not think it would be a reflection at all upon the voluntary societies if this Clause were deleted and salaries paid direct, but we plead with those societies to be as useful
in future, in reference to these probation officers, as we all know they have been in the past.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 11.—(Venue in indictable offences.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, in page 10, line 3, after the word "summons," to insert the words "lawfully issued."
This Amendment is one I promised to put in, so as to make it quite certain that the summons was properly issued.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, in page 10, line 12, to leave out the word "undue."
In this Amendment I have gone a little further, I think, than my undertaking in Committee. The Bill says:
Provided that, if at any time it appears to any examining justices during the course of any proceedings taken against any person before them in pursuance of this Subsection that the accused would suffer undue hardship if he were indicted and tried in the county or place aforesaid.
I propose to leave out the word "undue." so that he does not suffer any hardship at all.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 12.—(Provisions an to taking of depositions, and caution to and statement of accused on proceedings before examining Justices.)

Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to move, in page 13, line 16, at the end, to insert a new Sub-section:
(9) In the event of a court of summary jurisdiction sitting in petty sessions being of opinion that the witnesses in an indictable offence about to be brought before the court are numerous, or that for other reasons the examination before them is likely to last for a long time, the court may, by order, direct that the depositions shall be taken by a shorthand writer to be approved by the Lord Chancellor. For the purposes of this Section rules shall be made by the Lord Chancellor, in conjunction with the Secretary of State, for the taking of such depositions and the transcript of the same, and for adapting the provisions of Section 11, Sub-section (1), of this Act to meet the circumstances of the depositions being taken in shorthand and the transcription thereof before being read to the witnesses, and for providing for the expenses of the taking and transcribing the evidence and directing by whom the same shall be borne.
I move this Amendment on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield). The suggestion is that there should be a shorthand note taken in the police court in cases where the magistrates think it is desirable. Of course, apart from the expense, this would be a great advantage, because depositions are frequently drawn up in such a way that you cannot say whether the answer given by a witness is to a leading question or a question of any kind.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am sorry my right hon. and learned Friend has moved this. The subject was discussed in Committee, and the point is that the depositions which are taken in thousands of cases all over the country are not meant to be verbatim records, but they are meant to give an idea of the main lines of the evidence given by witnesses and taken by an experienced lawyer, so that, in the event of a person being sent for trial, the judge shall know what the evidence is. Immediately they are taken by the Clerk of the Court, they are read over and signed by the witness as his depositions. If there is going to be a shorthand note of every piece of examination, cross-examination and re-examination, it cannot be read over and signed by the witness immediately after, and the unfortunate witness will probably have to come again the following day to have it read over, making two attendances at the police court instead of one. It will also mean sending, at enormous additional expense, to the Quarter Sessions or Assizes, a long and perhaps irrelevant mass of matter, instead of the concise statement there now is. That was the position in the Committee stage, and I promised my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield), who took a great deal of interest in this—and I did not want to force my opinions upon the Committee—that I would communicate with the Lord Chief Justice on this matter. I sent to the Lord Chief Justice a transcript of the OFFICIAL REPORT, including the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend, and I am authorised by the Lord Chief Justice to say that he would not regard this as an improvement in our criminal procedure. In these circumstances, as my right hon. and learned Friend appealed to Cæsar, I ask him to accept Caesar's decision.

Sir H. NIELD: I am not prepared to say I am not altogether satisfied with the particular Cæsar appealed to, but, at the same time, I think it is in the interest of the prisoner that such a note should be taken. I have frequently been impressed by the remark being made that an answer does not appear on the depositions. Again and again that objection has been urged, and I have had to point out to the jury that it is impossible for a longhand note, taken down by the Clerk of the Court, to contain everything that was said during the course of the investigation before the Bench or the police Magistrate. It is only in cases that are-likely to be long and intricate that this is asked for. In the Court of Quarter Sessions you have the shorthand writer officially appointed, taking down every word that is uttered, except the speeches of counsel. That is part of the criminal system of the country. I do not call attention to any particular case in my county, but sometimes longhand notes are abominable. First of all you cannot decipher them, and the typing clerks who duplicate them often make mistakes, and, naturally so, by reason of the difficulty of deciphering the handwriting. In difficult cases requiring long investigation, these shorthand notes would be invaluable to the prisoner, and it is on behalf of the prisoner that I ask the House to accent this Amendment. I do not propose to put the House to the trouble of a division after the answer of the Home Secretary, but I am satisfied that hon. Members opposite, having had their attention called to it, will see the desirability before long of this change being made.

Mr. RAWLINSON: Out of courtesy to my right hon. and learned Friend, who, I know, needed sustenance of a kind other than mental, I undertook to move the Amendment. I cannot go further with the matter, but I am not quite convinced by the Home Secretary's remarks. After all, the House of Commons has to form its own opinion. The real answer to my Motion is that it would be far too expensive to carry out. Therefore, I ask the leave of the House to withdraw it.

Mr. LANSBURY: I only came into the House at a time when my hon. and learned Friend opposite seemed to have made out an excellent case as to why this proposal should be carried. I
cannot for the life of me see why what is proposed cannot be done. It seems to me to be a pretty rational thing that evidence should be taken clown in shorthand. If the argument against it is that evidence should be taken down in longhand to be certain that you get it down correctly, then if the hon. and learned Gentlemen are right, let us have their reasons for supposing that we shall not get it correctly in the other case. I had some experience of gentlemen who take down evidence in longhand. They have made me say what I did not say, and what I did say they have distorted in an extraordinary manner when it was given in evidence against me at the next Court. The position is an extraordinary position for the two hon. and learned Gentlemen to take up. They make excellent speeches in support of the Amendment and upon a subject of which they know a great deal, and then they run away from that position. Having made speeches in support of the Amendment, now, because the Government will not do the right thing or the thing that they want done, and which they say is the proper thing to do, they run away from their Amendment—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): The hon. Gentleman is addressing hon. Members opposite: he should address the Chair.

Mr. LANSBURY: The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite led me astray by addressing me, and I thought it was only courteous that I should reply to him.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley has convicted me of not calling to order the hon. and learned Gentleman who led him astray.

Mr. LANSBURY: The point I want to make is a perfectly simple one. I am sure every Member of the House understands it. Two hon. and learned Gentlemen, who thoroughly understand the position, have put a case to the House, and because the Government choose to say "we do not think it is convenient," or for some other reason, "do not let us do it," they run away from their Amendment. I think we ought to keep them to the Amendment, especially we people who come under the clutches of
these gentlemen occasionally, and who suffer from their inability to get down evidence in longhand as quickly as other people do in shorthand. I sat in a court the other day. It was a perfectly montrous waste of time while an old gentleman was getting it down. We ought to have proper, correct, and efficient note-takers to take down the evidence so that when it is subsequently read over in Court you may have some sort of confidence that you are repeating what was really said. I hope my hon. Friends on the front bench will not hold themselves back, but support this view, and prevent this Amendment being withdrawn.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I hope before this Amendment goes to the Vote we shall have the views of the ex-Law Officers of the Crown. It. docs seem to me it would be an enormous simplification of legal procedure if the note could be taken in shorthand instead of long hand. While I do not profess to know whether this Amendment is right or not. I should like to have counsel's opinion, so to speak, as to whether it is not possible to simplify legal procedure by in the way suggested.

9.0 P.M.

Sir P. HASTINGS: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has made an impassioned appeal to me, and I certainly shall respond to that appeal, and say what I have to say about this Amendment. That is, that I absolutely and entirely disagree with it. I take a very strong view, and always have taken the view, that it would be far better to have in every Court of Justice in the country a shorthand writer to take down the evidence, so that if necessary it is subsequently available. We are asked to support an Amendment which states that a shorthand note is only to be taken in a ease where the Court of Summary Jurisdiction being
of opinion that the witnesses in an indictable offence about to be brought before the Court are numerous, or that for other reasons, examination before them is likely to last for a long time, may by order direct that the depositions shall be taken by a shorthand writer …
It seems to me that the view the Home Secretary has put forward as to this being necessary in one case and not in another is entirely avoiding the point. In other words you never know whether
you are going to have a shorthand note or not. There may be the case of the long firm fraud which lasts for days, where a shorthand note is taken, and a murder case which lasts a day, equally important to the persons concerned, where a note is not taken. It is most important that in every case we should have a shorthand note taken of every word that is given in evidence so that afterwards there shall not be, as now sometimes happens, any dispute as to what a witness did or did not say, or whether the words appearing on the depositions are the words actually used by the witness. If we can have a shorthand note taken in every Court I shall he perfectly prepared to support it.

Mr. SCURR: In this matter we seem to be following the usual English practice not to do the thing in one bite, as suggested. We always do this sort of thing gradually. I certainly shall oppose the withdrawal of the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 13.—(Binding over of witnesses conditionally and the reading of depositions at trial.)

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): I beg to move in page 13, line 39, to leave out from the word "notice" to the word "to," in line 41, and to insert instead thereof the words
at any time before the opening of the Assizes or Quarter Sessions to the clerk to the examining justices, and at any time thereafter.
In moving the Amendment which stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, let me say that its purpose is really to fulfil a promise which I gave in Committee. It is proposed slightly to alter the phraseology. As it is, it is not quite clear when you are to cease to give notice to the clerk to the examining Justices, and when you are to begin to give your notice to the clerk of Assize. The notice is a notice which you are required to give if you want witnesses to attend who have been provisionally bound over.

Amendment agreed to.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 14, line 2, at the end, to insert the words
The examining Justices shall on commiting the accused for trial inform him of his right to require the attendance at the
trial of any such witness as aforesaid and of the steps which he must take for the purpose of enforcing such attendance.
This Amendment is also made in fulfilment of a pledge given in Committee. It was suggested by the hon. and learned Member the ex-Solicitor-General that it would be convenient to have an express statement in the Bill that the examining Justices should tell the accused person of his right to have the attendance of a witness who had been provisionally bound over. The words to be inserted provide that that shall be done.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 18.—(Abolition of Grand Juries at Quarter Sessions.)

Sir H. SLESSER: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
The Amendment I am now moving touches one of the most important proposals of this Bill, namely, the proposal to abolish grand juries at Quarter Sessions. I had hoped that even at this late hour I might appeal to sufficient conservative feeling on the other side of the House to preserve this ancient institution, but, as I have said before in discussing this matter, I despair of finding any Conservatives in the party who sit opposite. The grand jury, as I should like to make quite clear to my hon. Friends on this side of the House, gives to every prisoner another chance. Some hon. Members may say, "The grand jury is constituted entirely of the more prosperous people in the county." That may be, conceivably, an argument for democratising the grand jury, but it is no argument for abolishing grand juries. Cases were cited to us in Committee, and they are known to this House, where real injustice has been avoided by the opportunity in grand jury of throwing out a bill when a man ought not to have been committed for trial at all—a power to correct a mistake made before the Justices. A man's chance of avoiding standing his trial when he has been wrongfully committed will be entirely destroyed if the machinery of the grand jury is removed. It may be that to-day there are not very many of these cases, although the hon. Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield) cited on the Committee stage a large number of cases, far more than most people realise, where grand juries have in fact thrown out bills.
What is the argument for the abolition of the grand jury? The grand jury is one of the most ancient, and certainly the most integral parts, of our system of criminal justice, which has always assumed the grand jury as the only channel through which the law brought a prisoner to trial before a petty jury; and I submit that it is a very serious thing lightly to alter this old machinery of criminal justice. It is said that people who are now summoned on grand juries would be saved a certain amount of trouble, and possibly expense, if they were not so summoned. That is a very fallacious argument. One of the strongest arguments in favour of the retention of the grand jury is that it does attempt to make people in various counties and boroughs interested in the administration of justice. It is a great mistake to think that justice should be a matter entirely concerning professional people. The whole idea of the grand jury is that people in the counties and in the boroughs should take a personal interest in the administration of justice in their districts. As I see it, the tendency is for the administration of criminal justice to become more and more professionalised, more and more a matter of bureaucracy and expert regulation. Against that the grand jury is and always has been a very good corrective. It may well be that in the future the times may be more troublous than they are now. There is no doubt, particularly in times of very keen political feeling, that grand juries have done a great service in the past to cure injustice, notably at the be ginning of the last century. There was case after case where men were saved the need of standing their trial before a petty jury through the action of the grand jury, particularly in the City of London, in refusing to return true bills.
Why should we be asked to consent to the abolition of the grand jury? It an-not be said that the need for the grand jury has passed away. I said that can-not be said, but I know it will be said, and said in a few minutes by the Attorney-General. Are people not as much entitled to a proper consideration of their case now as they were one hundred years ago? What are the circumstances which have arisen during the last hundred years which have made grand juries less neces-
sary than they were a century ago? This proposal arises simply from the radical itch for change which possesses the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. He thinks he must do something to alter criminal justice administration in this country. He says, "Let us destroy something; let us destroy the grand jury first." We have been told that when these "Bolsheviks," if I am not using a defamatory term, have succeeded in destroying the grand jury at Quarter Sessions, they will go on very shortly to destroy the grand jury at Assizes. All I am asking is that matters should remain as at present so far as the grand jury is concerned. It is natural and proper to summon persons in the county to take an active part in the administration of justice, and it gives a prisoner the chance that he may avoid having to stand his trial at Quarter Sessions. Side by side with the proposal to abolish grand juries is the proposal to increase the powers of Quarter Sessions, so that at the very time when a prisoner's chance is being reduced, the number of offences for which he may be tried at Quarter Sessions is being increased. Therefore, I make this appeal to hon. Members on this side of the House, who may object to the grand jury because of the first word, the word "grand." Let us certainly work to make the grand jury more democratic, but because at present the grand jury is (improperly as I think) limited to a certain class of the community, let us not, therefore, abolish what is a protection for a prisoner. I think the powers of the law in the administration of justice are quite strong enough at the present time. I hope this party, at any rate, will do nothing to reduce the safeguards which exist at present for the maintenance of the liberties and the chances of acquittal of a prisoner. The arguments in favour of the grand jury are substantial, are historic and based on experience. The arguments that the House will hear for the abolition of the grand jury are based on the mere material expediency of the moment, on the plea that a little less money will be spent in summoning grand juries, or that a few gentlemen who ought to be proud to serve the State on a grand jury will have a little more time to themselves.
The wisdom of the past has shown that the Grand Jury system works well as part of the English judiciary system. This is
a very great responsibility, because the Government are taking upon themselves to abolish an institution which I believe has existed nearly 1,000 years. I appeal to hon. Members opposite to retain this opportunity of correcting possible mistakes in the administration of justice, and I think it ought to appeal to them that the Chairman of Quarter Sessions should have the right to charge a Grand Jury. The arguments used for the abolition of the Grand Jury are mere arguments of expediency in order that people may save a little money here and there. Finally, I wish to say that the Grand Jury in the past has been the means of bringing people together in the counties, and I do not believe that the great majority of the people in the counties who serve upon Grand Juries wish to see the Grand Jury system abolished. I do not believe there is the slightest demand for the abolition of the Grand Jury in the country. This proposal is purely Departmental in its origin, and if you canvass the persons responsible I feel sure they would say in nearly every county they would prefer Quarter Sessions to continue as in the past. There is no case for this ruthless abolition of the system, and for that reason I move my Amendment.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Speaking, unfortunately, as a potential criminal, because one never knows in these days when one's opinion will be held to be unreasonable, I protest against the removal of any safeguard which may possibly keep me out of prison. I agree with the ex-Solicitor General that it is rather for the Government to make out an overwhelming case for the abolition of the Grand Jury than for us to defend the system. It must be within the memory of many here present that in the past Grand Juries have been the main defence of British liberty. In the prosecutions which took place at the close of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth century the Grand Juries alone stood between the action of the Tory Government of the day, which was trying to indict people like ourselves hut much more moderate as being guilty of constructive treason. Even the Grand Jury in those days was so moved by Mr. Erskine's passionate appeals that they threw out the Government prosecutions and saved the freedom of the subject and freedom of opinion in this country. For
that reason alone I would urge the Government to accept this Amendment.
I have also a personal reason for this course. The more I listen to the ex-Solicitor-General, the more I am convinced that we have in him the incarnation of Mr. G. K. Chesterton. If you are to choose between bureaucracy and even a Grand Jury I prefer the Grand Jury. Hero we are taking the first steps towards a change in the right direction. It is true that the Grand Jury, selected chiefly from the rich, invariably has class-conscious bias, but obviously the way to put that right is to improve the Grand Jury and not abolish it and hand over the jurisdiction solely to the judiciary alone. For these reasons, because I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend is standing up for the old British liberties against bureaucracy, I believe if we resist this change we shall be able to convert the Grand Jury into a really democratic body representing the bulk of the community, and I hope we shall go into the Division Lobby against this Clauce with a clear conscience and in the hope of converting bureaucratic Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. BANKS: I wish the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down would enlighten us in regard to what he has said about the proceedings of Grand Juries in the time to which he has alluded. If those juries were moved by the passionate appeals of Mr. Erskine, as he has stated, one would infer that at that time it was the custom for counsel to address Grand Jury, but that is an historical inaccuracy. I hope hon. Members will think twice before accepting the proposal which has been put forward.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The hon. and learned Member will find a full account of what I have said in regard to Mr. Erskine if he consults Campbell's "Lives of the Lord Chancellors."

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I think my hon. and gallant Friend is a little mistaken in attributing any such statements to Mr. Erskine, and if he studies the matter a little more closely he will find that Mr. Erskine made eloquent speeches in favour of acquittal, and the people who listened to him were the people who had to try the prisoner and they were petty jurors. The Grand Juries are never allowed now to listen to counsel, and they
never were. After pointing out that historical inaccuracy I will deal with the Amendment. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment denounced in fiery language the abolition of the Grand Juries, and he described them as the palladium of the liberty of speech. It may surprise hon. Members who were not present during the Committee stage, where this question was discussed at great length, to know that this Clause does not abolish Grand Juries, but it only abolishes Grand Jury at Quarter Sessions, leaving quite untouched the Grand Juries at Assizes.

Sir H. SLESSER: I said the proposal only applied to Quarter Sessions, and I stated clearly that if it was applied to Quarter Sessions it would subsequently be applied to other Sessions.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman say that, if it turns out later on that this does work well, we shall not be allowed to extend it? The present proposal is not to extend it, but only to see if it works well. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not tell the House, but perhaps some hon. Members may remember, that this is not a new experiment we are proposing, but an experiment which was tried for some years during the War, when Grand Juries were mainly occupied on other forms of public service and which worked admirably without any difficulties or complaints at all. I rather agree that the burden of proof rests upon the Government, because although the late Solicitor-General is moving to leave out the Clause, the fact is that the Government are asking the House, not to abolish, but to limit the number of cases in which Grand Juries are used. I would remind the House that the first reason why we wish to do this is that, contrary to what the hon. and learned Gentleman seems to think, the Grand Juries themselves do very earnestly desire this change. We have had presentment after presentment from Grand Juries all over the country begging us to introduce it, and after all they really know best what they desire. They have sent out a whole sheaf of presentments to the Home Office—I have not got the exact figure, but I think my right hon. Friend has between 45 and 50 of them from various localities — begging the Government to abolish Grand Juries at Quarter Sessions because
they regard them as a wholly unnecessary expense and waste of time; and that is the great case for their abolition. They are a severe tax upon the Grand Juries themselves, who are brought repeatedly from all over the county to attend in order to listen to directions from the chairmen of Quarter Sessions upon various points of law, and then, in almost every case, after seeing one or two witnesses to return a true Bill, and allow a case to go forward which has already been committed by the magistrate who has investigated the facts.
Further, not only are Grand Juries themselves exposed to considerable expense and waste of time but witnesses in every case which is coming before Quarter Sessions are exposed to considerable expense and waste of time, since in every case that has to come before the Grand Jury—and it is quite uncertain how many witnesses a Grand Jury will require to hear before they find the true Bill— so that every witness has to be brought there on the first day of the Sessions in order to be produced before the Grand Jury, if required, in order that the Grand Jury may find a true Bill. That is not only a great expense which the county has to defray, but also a very considerable waste of time to the witnesses, who, after all, in some eases have no concern in the case, but are only there in the discharge of their public duty. One ought to remember the trouble and inconveniences to which witnesses at criminal trials are very often exposed by the mere accident that they happen to be sometimes very remotely connected with a case in having to prove some comparatively trivial fact which has to be established by formal evidence. It does seem to me that if the witnesses are to be saved all this expense and trouble, it is a material fact.
I would like to tell the House what I explained to the Committee, that in every case in which a Grand Jury can perform any useful function, for example, where somebody, notwithstanding that the magistrate says there is no case, desires to prefer an indictment, and is bound over to do so under the Vexatious Indictment Act. We preserve the existence of the Grand Jury, and all that happens is that the particular prosecutor is bound over to appear at the next Assizes instead of at the next Quarter Sessions. There is no
hardship to the accused in that case, because ex hypothesi he has been charged by the magistrate, and therefore goes about his affairs quite free from bail or costs. These are the grounds why we ask the House to favour this change. It is a matter which has been tried and has worked successfully, and which will save a considerable amount of public money and a considerable waste of the time of the people who cannot afford it. It is very often an inconvenience and expense to witnesses, and the change inflicts no injustice or hardship on anybody in the world. In the old cases to which my hon. and learned Friend refers, there was presented direct to the Grand Jury by the Attorney-General of the day a charge of treason, and as in many of these cases, as he well remembers but as his right hon. and gallant colleague has forgotten, there was a trial by the petty jury, and Mr. Erskine persuaded the petty jury to find a verdict of "Not guilty." In any case of treason, that would still happen. In practice to-day, that is not the way an indictment is normally proceeded with. The charge is first made before a justice or a stipendiary magistrate, and the magistrate in every case carefully examines the facts and satisfies himself that there is a prima facie case before he commits the accused. Unless he is satisfied that there is such a case an accused person goes free and there is no question of grand or petty jury in it. If the magistrate is satisfied that there is a case for investigation by a petty jury, then it does not seem to me any great hardship that the accused should have the case investigated by the jury by whom the committing magistrate thinks it ought to be tried.
The only other body of persons who object to the abolition is, I think, a certain number of Recorders, who act sometimes as Chairmen at Quarter Sessions and who have the privilege at present of explaining to grand juries what their views on law are. Unfortunately, these opportunities will be abolished if this provision is agreed to. I cannot help thinking that that deprivation is one that they ought to undergo in the public interest.
So far as the Grand Juries themselves are concerned, they will still have the privilege of having an authoritative explanation of the law from the judge of
assize as to any necessary matters connected with the administration of justice. There may be a reason why it should be desirable that magistrates should have the administration of law explained to them, and that right is preserved. Conservatism does not consist, as the hon. and learned Gentleman seems to think, in preserving what is useless, but only in preserving and improving what is really good.

Mr. RAWLINSON: As one of the class to which the Attorney-General has referred with so much sarcasm and humour —the despised class of Recorders who sometimes have to administer criminal justice—I appeal to his better nature, and ask him to let us have a chance of a free vote on this point. I assure him that this is not a question of Conservatism or Liberalism. The split upon this question divides parties in strangely diverse lines. It is not a question of politics at all. Is it a time to take away what, undoubtedly, is a safeguard at present, when this Bill is going to increase very largely the powers of Quarter Sessions? You have in many cases a new set of magistrates unversed in criminal law, and they are, possibly, committing for trial to Quarter Sessions with a very much larger jurisdiction than they have ever had before. Is it wise at such a moment to take away this extra bulwark in favour of the prisoner? I am not going into the points raised by the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), but there are still cases in which this safeguard is useful. Anyone who has been concerned with criminal law will know, for instance, that in the case of a charge of indecent assault against a man whose defence is consent, the Grand Jury may, on questioning the witnesses for the prosecution, throw out the Bill; and in circumstances of that kind a Grand Jury may still sometimes be of use at the present time, in preventing the trial of cases which are better not tried in court.
Apart from that, let me deal with the two points put by the Attorney-General— the expense to witnesses and the expense to the State, that the witnesses will have to attend the grand jury on the first day of the Sessions, and that, therefore, a great amount of expense will be saved if that is abolished. Not one single penny piece, however, will be saved, because
every witness will have to attend on the first day whether this Bill be passed or not. They must be there on the first day, when pleas of guilty are taken. During the War there was never any remission as regards witnesses attending on the first day of the Sessions, and they will have to be there in the future just as they are now. Therefore, the question of expense to the State has nothing to do with the matter. Not one penny of expense will be saved to the State, nor any inconvenience to witnesses, by the abolition of the grand jury.
That there is a certain amount of inconvenience in serving on the Grand Jury there is not the slightest doubt, but, surely, it is important now, when the magistracy is being extended, when great powers are being given by this very Bill, and when men and women who have never been in a Criminal Court in their lives are being put on the magisterial bench. Is this a time to take away what is really a very instructive opportunity to people connected with the criminal law? The people who are summoned on Grand Juries at Quarter Sessions are not the people who serve on the Grand Jury at Assizes. The Grand Jury at Assizes consists of magistrates of the county, who are already interested in criminal law, but the people who come to the Grand Jury at Quarter Session, at any rate in the borough from which I come—the taunt as to their being rich depends very much upon what is regarded as riches, but I do not know that anyone in this House would look upon them as rich —come, it may be at some inconvenience, and, it may be, are lectured by the Recorder or by the chairman, about whose title to confidence some doubts have been expressed. It does tend to bring them to try and take an interest in that most important branch of legal work, the administration of the criminal law, and the more fact that they do come is an educative influence upon the grand jury in that case. Those are the people to whom we have to look for the magistrates in any borough. I do hope the Government will leave this matter to an open vote tonight. I agree, and I am grateful for it, that the grand jury is to be permitted to remain at Assizes, but is this proposal really quite so wise as it looks? Does the prisoner really require more protec-
tion at Assizes, when he is tried by a Judge of the High Court, than at Quarter Sessions, when he is tried not by the chairman of Quarter Sessions, but by one of the class to which I have the honour to belong, and at which my right hon. and learned Friend laughed and gibed— the humble Recorder who likes to hear his own voice. I must apologise for inflicting mine on the House on this occasion.

Sir H. NIELD: I listened quietly to the dulcet tones of the Attorney-General, and took his rebuke with fitting humility. It is long since he went to Quarter Sessions, he having, meteor-like, shot ahead and left the rest of us in the wilderness; but let me tell him and the House that not the least of the duties which these officers have to perform is to deal with the chief constable's report on crime and other matters concerning the good government of the country. It is no pleasure to them to have to wade through depositions and address the jury upon them, and I can assure the House that I have never done such a thing, but that five minutes will see the jury considering their Bill. I cannot see the distinction between the two classes of cases, except that the one is, of course, much more serious than the other, and involves far heavier punishments, as a rule, though Quarter Sessions have power to pass, and are often justified in passing, very stringent sentences. It seems to me, however, that the policy of the Government is that, if a thing has been tried during the War, under exceptional war conditions, when people have universally endeavoured to make things run smoothly because of the War there is a necessity to prolong and legalise it in time of peace. We heard a rumble of it this afternoon, which will probably recur to-morrow, in connection with the first Order on the Paper, the Expiring Laws Bill, which attempts to make permanent legislation which was only submitted to by the good will of the people during the War. To say that this abolition of Grand Juries at Quarter Sessions has so justified itself in practice that it ought to be continued is, I think, with great respect to the Attorney-General, going a little too far. There never was a question that divided people more than this question of Grand Juries. It divided the High Court, we are told. It has not divided the chairmen of
Quarter Sessions. I ventured, as will be seen from the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Standing Committee for the 16th June last, to read an extract to the Committee.
I will not inflict it on the House because it consists of over a column of close print, but in column 171 of the OFFICIAL REPORT hon. Members will find set out the objections of Chairmen of Quarter Sessions to any alteration with regard to the Grand Jury. There is a society of Chairmen of Quarter Sessions which comprises chairmen and deputy-chairmen all over the country. In 1909 their opinion was sought and the resolution was passed that the society, was of opinion that it would be a great mistake to abolish Grand Juries at Quarter Sessions. That was after a circular letter had been sent round the whole country to ascertain the views of the justices. In 1914, just before the War, another plebiscite was taken, and in the opinion of the society it was not desirable that Grand Juries should be abolished. In 1921, when the danger was imminent, they not only expressed the same opinion, but they gave a series of reasons for having come to that conclusion. I think a man's character is just as precious to him whether he is before a Court of Quarter Sessions or whether he is committed to Assizes. There are many members of petty sessional benches who are not skilled in the hearings and committals of cases and over and over again cases have been committed which ought not to have been. I wonder whether hon. Members opposite appreciate that a man who under the present system would be released by a Grand Jury throwing out a bill, if sent before a petty jury, very often, by prejudice or by the nature of the offence, runs the risk of getting convicted when he should not be. I called attention—it is reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT—to two cases which had been dealt with by the Grand Jury in Middlesex only four days before I spoke. I spoke on the Wednesday, and on the preceding Saturday the jury threw out the bills. They discriminated because in the one case they cut the bill only, and in the other they cut it against a receiver who was charged jointly. You had an astonishing illustration of the injustice that might be done in the case of Major Shepherd which my right hon. Friend investigated. Major Shepherd's bill was thrown out at the
London Session. But for that he would have been sent before a petty jury, and who knows what his fate might have been? There you have a very strong case for keeping it. Cases, so far from being unusual, are numerous where in petty sessions all over the country the Grand Jury think it desirable to stop the case and throw the bill out, and so give the prisoner a chance.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: My hon. and learned Friend is mistaken in thinking the Grand Jury threw out the bill in the Shepherd case. It never went before them.

Sir H. NIELD: If the Recorder withdrew it, it shows that discretion was exercised wisely to prevent the witnesses having to go before the grand jury on a charge that ought never to have been brought. I appeal to the Government to let the House have a free vote. It is of enormous importance. It is all very well to say it has been tried. It has not been tried under normal circumstances. The calendars were less then than they are now. The number of crimes was considerably diminished, to the credit of those who are generally tried in those Courts. They kept themselves quiet or went abroad for other purposes. At any rate, do not say, because it passed muster them, that it is necessarily a good thing to do away with it. I am sure the House and the country will be grateful if you do not abolish grand juries at Quarter Sessions. Although representations may be made from time to time in favour of abolition by the very men who are summoned on the grand juries, I am sure if you took a poll of them you would find them by no means hostile to it, because it is a safeguard.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Everyone knows this is a non-political Bill and one which all who are interested in the administration of justice are very anxious to get through. We have only an hour and eight minutes to do it. May I make this suggestion. There is only one other Amendment of importance and that is on Clause 31. If it were possible to take the next two Amendments—they are only to carry out undertakings I gave in Committee—and then take the Amendment on Clause 31, if the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite would give me a
reasonable hope that I might get the Bill I would gladly leave this Clause to the unfettered decision of the House. I will not make a speech on it myself. I do not want to make an absolute bargain, but if the hon. and learned Gentleman will say he will do his best with his Friends to get the Bill through by 11 o'clock I will leave this here and now to the decision of the House.

Sir P. HASTINGS: The only thing I am concerned with is Clause 31, and provided we can have this left to the free Vote of the House I shall certainly do my best to see that the Bill gets through.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the end of page 18, line 7, stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 149; Noes, 184.

Division No. 361.]
AYES.
[9.56 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nuttall, Ellis


Albery, Irving James
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Oakley, T.


Apsley, Lord
Haslam, Henry C.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Ashmead-Bartlett, E.
Hawke, John Anthony
Ormsby Gore, Hon. William


Baldwin. Rt. Hon. Stanley
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Palin, John Henry


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Penny, Frederick George


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Perring, William George


Bennett, A. J.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Pielou, D. P.


Bethell, A.
Hennessy. Major J. R. G.
Preston, William


Betterton, Henry B.
Herbert, S.(York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Radford, E. A.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hilton, Cecil
Raine, W.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Remer, J. R.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Holt, Captain H. P.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Homan, C. W. J.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Rye, F. G.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Burman, J. B.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Cassels, J. D.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Savery, S. S.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Clayton, G. C.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth. Cen'l)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Cooper, A. Duff
Jones. Henry Haydn, (Merioneth)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cope, Major William
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Storry Deans, R.


Craig, Ernest (Chester. Crewe)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
King. Captain Henry Douglas
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Templeton, W. P.


Dalkcith, Earl of
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Davidson. Major-General Sir John H.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Loder, J. de V.
Waddington. R.


Drewe, C.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Luce. Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Warrender, Sir Victor


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Fermoy, Lord
Macintyre, Ian
Wells, S. R.


Fleming, D. P.
McLean, Major A.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Ford, P. J.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Fraser, Captain Ian
McNeill Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Gee, Captain R.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Gibbs Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Merriman, F. B.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Gilmour. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Meyer, Sir Frank
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Goff, Sir Park
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Mitchell, W, Foot (Saffron Walden)



Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. on. B. M.
Mr. Lamb and Lieut.-Colonel


Hanhury, C.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Assheton-Pownall.


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Brocklebank, C. E. R.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Barr, J.
Bromley, J.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Batey, Joseph
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Buchanan, G.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Berry, Sir George
Butler, Sir Geoffrey


Atkinson, C.
Bird, E. H. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Butt, Sir Alfred


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward


Baker, Walter
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cape, Thomas


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Brass, Captain W.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Briggs, J. Harold
Charleton, H. C.


Barnes, A.
Broad, F. A.
Clarry, Reginald George


Clowes, S.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Cluse, W. S.
Jephcott, A. R.
Shepperson, E. W,


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kelly, W. T.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Compton, Joseph
Kennedy, T.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Connolly, M.
Lansbury, George
Sitch, Charles H.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lawson, John James
Smillie, Robert


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lee, F.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Little, Dr. E, Graham
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Smithers, Waldron


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Looker, Herbert William
Snell, Harry


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lord, Walter Greaves-
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Dixey, A. C.
Lowth, T.
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Duncan, C.
Lunn, William
Stamford, T. W.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Mackinder, W.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Eveden, Viscount
MacLaren, Andrew
Stephen, Campbell


England, Colonel A.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Stott, Lieut. Colonel W. H.


Everard, W. Lindsay
March, S.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Meller, R. J.
Sunden, Sir Wilfrid


Forrest, W.
Montague, Frederick
Sutton, J. E.


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Taylor, R. A.


Gates Percy
Morden, Colonel Walter Grant
Thurtle, E.


Gillett, George M.
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Tinker, John Joseph


Gosling, Harry
Murchison, C. K.
Tinne, J. A.


Gower Sir Robert
Murnin, H.
Townend, A. E.


Grace John
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Greenall, T.
Naylor, T. E.
Viant, S. P.


Grenfell, O. R. (Glamorgan)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Gretton, Colonel John
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Griffiths. T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Watts, Dr. T.


Grotrian, H. Brent
Oliver, George Harold
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Grundy, T. W.
Paling, W.
Weir, L. M.


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Parkinson. John Allen (Wigan)
Westwood, J.


Hall, F. (York, W R., Normanton)
Pennefather, Sir John
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
White Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Hammersley, S. S.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Whiteley, W.


Hardle, George D.
Potts, John S.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Haslam, Henry C.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torauay)


Hastings, Sir Patrick
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Hayday, Arthur
Rawson, Alfred Cooper
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Hayes, John Henry
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Williams, T. (York Don Valley)


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Remnant, Sir James
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Henderson. T. (Glasgow)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hirst, G. H.
Riley, Ben
Womersley, W. J.


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Roberts. Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Robinson, W. C.(Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)



Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Scrymgeour, E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Scurr, John
Sir Herbert Nield and Sir Henry


Hume, Sir G. H.
Sexton, James
Slesser.


Jacob, A. E.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)



Question put, and agreed to.

Remaining words of the Clause left out.

CLAUSE 20.—(Power to enter appeals for adjourned or intermediate Sessions.)

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, in page 20, line 28, to leave out the words "not being," and to insert instead thereof the words "unless it is."
This Amendment, and the Amendment which follows, are moved to carry out an undertaking given by the Attorney-General on the Committee stage to insert verbal Amendments for the purpose of making the Clause a little clearer.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 20, line 29, leave out the words "not comprising," and insert instead thereof the words "which does not comprise."— [Sir W..Joynson-Hicks.]

CLAUSE 23.—(Summary trial of indictable offences.)

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, in page 23, line 39, to leave out Sub-section (3), and to insert instead thereof
10.0 P.M.
(3) Any enactments in force at the commencement of this Act which relate to the summary trial of indictable offences or which refer to indictable offences which are triable summarily shall, subject to the provisions of this Section, be construed, as the case may be, as applying to the summary trial of indictable offences under this Section or as referring to all indictable offences which are triable summarily thereunder.
I propose to insert the same Sub-section in a little different words. The Amendment, in effect, applies the existing machinery that is necessary for giving
effect to the intentions of the Bill, and makes a little clearer the words in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 31.—(Issue of Search Warrants.)

Sir P. HASTINGS: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
This Amendment is regarded by those on this side of the House as the most important Amendment to the whole of this Bill. The Home Secretary has shown, by what happened just now, that he agrees that this is not a party Bill at all. It is a matter of our criminal law. I hope that he will deal exactly the same with this Clause as he did with the last Amendment which was discussed on Clause 18. This Clause raises the right of the police to take power from magistrates for what I may call a universal search, which will affect people who may not be criminals at all, but may affect anyone. I think that I am right in saying that I know of no precedent for a power in this form. It is a complete innovation. The House knows there are many cases under our law where specific crimes are dealt with by Acts of Parliament and the magistrate is given the power to issue a search warrant in the case of certain specific crimes in order that the police may have certain facilities for executing their duty. But this is a Clause which to many of us really is shocking, and for this reason.
It is true that by some Amendment in the name of the Homo Secretary it is to be narrowed, but as originally drawn this Clause permitted anyone, for whatever reason he thought fit, to apply to a magistrate and state upon oath that he had reason to believe that a criminal offence was going to be committed by someone, and thereupon the magistrate had power to grant a warrant to the police to enter the premises of anybody, not the proposed criminal or any anticipated criminal, but anybody, and search any person on the premises and search the premises and take away any property. Stated in that form it is an absolute innovation in the law of this country, because whether ill or well founded no one doubts for a moment that no policeman could now come into the house of a man not guilty of a crime and search the premises merely because someone else had alleged that a third person might be
going to commit an offence, and in some form or other the house in which the person is searched should have some connection with the suspected offence. It is true that the Home Secretary has sought to narrow down this Clause by saying, first, that the person making the application must be a police officer of high standing. He also agrees that the person may not be searched, but the vicious element in this Clause is undoubted.
The only possible argument which I have heard at any time in support of this Clause is this, that if it is possible to search premises when a crime is committed it is better to search the premises in order to prevent crime being committed. Stated in that form it is an attractive proposition, but after all you might as well say that if the police thought that anybody was going to commit a crime, and satisfied the magistrate by evidence, the magistrate might have power to authorise the police to take that person and examine him at the police station. If these powers are given we are bound to see where they would lead. Take what this Clause might embrace, because cases of that sort are so serious that it is necessary to discuss them. It will be quite possible to have a law dealing with particular sorts of cases, but take the case of some threatened trade dispute. I am not speaking of an unauthorised strike, or something which is condemned by the country, but a real question between the workmen and the masters in a large trade.
It frequently happens, if passions become aroused, that persons may be charged with unlawful assembly or riot. and in any single case of a large industrial dispute, which had lasted for some time, it would be perfectly open and proper for a police officer, if a certain crime were anticipated to go to the magistrate and say, "I have reason to believe that in a certain district these men are making combinations which may be called unlawful assemblies," and thereupon the magistrate would have the power, and probably the duty cast upon him, to cause all the persons connected with the dispute, who might be the responsible leaders, searched by the police, and their property taken away, and the police would have no option, if they saw anything at all which might be connected with this prospective
or possible disturbance, but they would be bound to seize all the documents connected with a large number of different people who had nothing whatever to do with the matter, but who, on the other hand, might be people concerned with bringing about good relations between the parties.
How can it said to be in the public interest that powers like those should be given to the police now, not powers in connection with a person who has been guilty of anything at all, but merely because the police say that there is possible ground for suspecting that an unlawful offence may be committed by somebody, and though the person in the House-may have no connection with it at all, yet the police think that some information may be discovered if they go to the houses of three or four persons in various parts of the country and search under a warrant? The Home Secretary will agree that this ought not to be a political matter, and if there is no intention of a political nature surely it can be left to a free Vote of the House, and those who voted on the last Amendment would vote again on this. For hundreds of years past one of the things most boasted about in our country has been that this thing is not permitted. In every other country in the world it is permitted, but we have always boasted that it is not permitted. What justification is there now for starting such an innovation?
How can it be understood by anybody if after to-night this is put forward not as a free Vote? But, as the Home Secretary has told us, this is not a political Measure. This is a pure question of the administration of justice, and therefore, for some reason which does not appear, it is now thought fit to introduce this Clause. It is fair to say that this Bill in greater part has been before another place under another Government. This Clause is new. It has been introduced by this Government, as far as I know, without a word of reason to explain what has occurred within the last 12 months to make the Cause necessary. I appeal to the Home Secretary, if he means what he says—that this is not a political Measure, but merely one affecting the administration of justice— to leave us now, as he did before, to go into the Lobby and freely to vote there as we think best.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I admit that this is a very important Clause of the Bill. It is one which those who advise me in the administration of criminal law are very anxious to have passed It has no reference to political matters. The Clause was put in at the request of the Director of Public Prosecutions, in order to help what is the primary object of all criminal law, namely, that the criminal should be the more easily brought to justice. That is the sole object of the Bill. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken will agree that that is a very proper object of the criminal law, provided, of course, that you do nothing that interferes unfairly with the freedom and liberty of the subject. A good deal has been said about search warrants. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not tell the House that there are already 36 Statutes under which search warrants can be granted. They deal with such matters as dangerous drugs, obscene publications, larceny, forgery—I need not give a list of them. The idea of the search warrant is, therefore, no new thing in criminal law. About two years ago there was a Committee presided over by Mr. Justice Talbot, and upon that Committee sat the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman), who sits and votes with the Liberal party in this House. The following was the decision of that Committee:
The law as to search warrants is, we are advised, very fragmentary. It is, for the most part, to be found in Acts of Parliament passed from time to time to deal with particular matters considered to be specially urgent; and the result is that there are many cases at least as grave as those provided for, in which no power of the kind exists. The Acts also vary as to the conditions under which warrants are issued, and as to the authority which may issue them. We suggest for consideration whether, in all cases in which the commission or intended commission of an indictable offence is reasonably suspected, there should not be under proper conditions a power of search. It might possibly be thought convenient to take the opportunity of making the laws of England and of Scotland uniform as to this matter.
There are already all these various Acts of Parliament under which different kinds of search warrants can be issued. When a felony is about to be committed a police officer may enter without a warrant. Suppose that an indictable offence is "about to be committed."
There are several cases where the "about to be committed" condition comes in under the present law. It is not a new proposal. It is merely a proposal to make this provision apply to all criminal cases. Under the Indictable Offences Act, Section 21, a justice may issue a warrant to search the premises of any person suspected of having in his possession any instrument capable of or intended for the making of counterfeit coin.

Sir P. HASTINGS: It is an offence to have such an instrument.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The offence really is the making of the counterfeit coin. That is the real offence. It is a technical offence, I agree, to have a machine for making counterfeit coin in one's possession, but the real crime is committed when the machine is put into operation and the counterfeit coin is made. Similarly under the Forgery Act, 1913, Section 16, a search warrant may be issued in the belief that a person has any implement intended to be used for forgery. Under the Malicious Damages Act a justice may also issue a warrant to search any premises in which any implement or explosive substance is kept for the purpose of being used to commit a felony. I am asking the House to realise that there is in existence this power for a magistrate to issue a search warrant to find out whether there are compromising instruments in the possession of the person against whom the search warrant is issued. Under the Official Secrets Act passed in 1911 a search warrant may be issued on reasonable suspicion that an offence is about to be committed. There you have practically the exact words of this Clause. They are already embodied in an Act of Parliament, and where a magistrate is satisfied that an offence is about to be committed he may, in that case, issue a search warrant. There are all these different classes of search warrants.
I am asking the House to give this power to the justices, and I have quoted the view of the committee in which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea himself concurred. I am not a criminal lawyer, but am advised by those responsible for the administration of the criminal law in this country that this power would be of considerable help
towards the prevention of crime, and it is the prevention of crime that we want to achieve. If we have reasonable suspicion that a man is going to commit a crime and if by a search warrant we can go in and get hold of the implements which he is about to use—if for example, we can get hold of the poison which a man has stored up for the purpose of committing a murder, it is better to do so than to wait until the murder has been committed. That is really the object of this Clause. When we were in Committee upstairs the right hon. and learned Gentleman the ex-Attorney-General and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the ex-Solicitor-General put various cases to me and suggested that it was not fair that warrants should be granted in such cases. I ask the House to remember that the warrant can only be granted when the magistrate is satisfied. It seemed to be suggested that because a policeman applied to a magistrate for a warrant the magistrate was therefore bound to grant him one. Nothing of the kind. There must be, in the first place, an information made upon oath and the magistrate must be satisfied that a crime is about to be committed before he can grant the search warrant. In the next place, the complaint was made that it was not fair to issue such warrants on the application of a police constable. I want to do what is fair, and I will meet the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. I will agree that a warrant should not be issued except on the sworn statement of a police officer of the rank of inspector or above that rank.
Then we were told in Committee that it was a very great hardship that we should search the person of an individual, and that it is a new idea in English criminal law. Very well, as I said in Committee, I will waive that and will withdraw from the Clause the right to search the person. In fact, any single point that is really of definite hardship in this Clause I have offered to meet; I have offered to put in any Amendments, and if the House will look at the Order Paper following the particular Amendment now being discussed, they will see no fewer than three Amendments to be moved by myself in order to make the Clause more in accordance with the views of the party opposite. I agree that, if possible, the criminal law of this country should never be altered. The right hon.
Gentleman has told us that this power is in existence in nearly every country in the world, and I do not know that we are so admirable in all our undertakings and laws that we are never to consider, at all events, what other countries deem to be necessary with the primary object of convicting a criminal of crime, and I am advised that this is a Clause which is to be found, as the right hon. Gentleman said, in the jurisprudence of country after country on the Continent of Europe. [An HON. MEMBER: "This is the most law-abiding country."] It is a very law-abiding country, but crime is not unknown in this country. There are a very large number of crimes committed in this country, and, unfortunately, a very considerable number of crimes which are not prosecuted and convicted.
Hon. Members may have read that book that came out the other day by Sir Basil Thomson, who has a very startling list of crimes where the criminal could not be found, and where there was no prosecution at all, and that is by no means a satisfactory position of affairs. After all, while we want to be fair in the administration of justice and to give the criminal himself the utmost chance to go before a jury to try whether or not he is guilty, we do want—I say it advisedly—to do our utmost to see that, where a crime has been committed, or is about to be committed, the criminal should be brought to justice, or, if possible, the crime should be prevented. That is the object of this Clause, and I hope the House will pass it. I have tried to be very conciliatory in regard to the earlier stages of the Bill—I have tried to meet hon. Members opposite in every possible way—and I hope on this occasion the House will give me this Clause, which is so much desired by those who are far more intimately concerned than I am in the administration of justice.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: If I had known that this Clause was in this Bill, the Government would have proceeded less rapidly with the Bill than they have done. I do not think the Home Secretary and I agree on many questions, but I always imagined that he was as keen as I am on the traditions of Great Britain as opposed to the Continental traditions. He is known, rightly or wrongly, as an opponent of alien immigration into this
country; yet here he is guilty of accepting an alien idea and implanting it in British jurisprudence. I gather from him that this Clause is not his Clause, but that he has accepted it from Sir Archibald Bodkin and Sir Basil Thomson.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, I did not say Sir Basil Thomson.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: You quoted him as an example of the way in which crimes fail to be discovered, but, in the first place, may I point out that this Bill has been introduced before? I think it was introduced by the Labour Government, and this Clause was not in the Bill then. If Sir Archibald Bodkin had thought it was desirable that this Clause should be embodied in our jurisprudence, why did he not recommend it to the Labour Government? I can tell you why he did not. He did not because he knew very well that the Labour Government would not have tolerated a Clause such as this, which can be used for political purposes. The right hon. Gentleman has given us a list of 36 Acts altogether, list after list of dimes in which the police already possess this power of search. He did not tell us how many of the undiscovered crimes in Sir Basil Thomson's book were crimes where this right of search was already possessed by the police, but I imagine it would be a considerable number. Everybody knows that if there is any special crime, either you have already power to search, or this House would give powers to search, but we are naturally suspicious of a Clause like this imported into this Bill at the last moment, not put in a Bill which was drafted under the advice, I presume, of exactly the same people last year, but put into a Bill this year at a time when the Government are deliberately creating a new class of crime. If this is not intended for political purposes, then we ought to have an Amendment down specially to exclude those cases of political crime with which we are now so familiar.
Let me give the light hon. Gentleman an illustration of what this Bill enables the Government, and, above all, Sir Archibald Bodkin to do. In the year 1912, I remember very well what were known as the "Don't shoot" prosecutions. There was a railway stoker, I think, who went down and distributed to the troops at Aldershot a leaflet urging
them not to shoot their fellow-workers during the coal dispute. For that he got put into gaol. He got the matter from some obscure publication and printed it at his own expense. He was sentenced. Then various papers like the "Hudders-field Worker," the "Labour Leader" and, I think, the "Herald," in order to show that this prosecution by a Liberal Government in that case was an iniquitous interference with the liberty of the subject, deliberately reprinted that leaflet in their columns, and asked the Government to prosecute them if they dared. Not only that, but a great number of us deliberately embodied statements in that leaflet in letters which we sent to the Press, and in speeches which we made in public, calling upon the Government to prosecute us if they dared to do so. They did not, of course. The prosecutions broke down, and Tom Mann and the other people were let out of prison. But if this Clause goes through, it will give the right hon. Gentleman the right to search my house. Goodness knows what they would find! It gives the Government the right to search your house if Sir Archibald Bodkin does not like you. The magistrates all belong—well, not all—I am afraid it would not be difficult to find a magistrate who would agree with a policeman to search my house, and I think we could find Labour magistrates who would agree to search your houses.
The whole point is this; Are we going to give to the Government, who are now undertaking political prosecutions ominously similar to the "Don't shoot" prosecutions, powers to search, not the houses of criminals, but the houses of everybody who believes in freedom of speech, and who tries, therefore, to support these people who are prosecuted? The right hon. Gentleman made a specially strong point—I think he must know it was entirely beside the mark— when he said: "Is it obviously not better to prevent crime than to punish crime when it has been committed?" Good Heavens! If you are going to follow that out as a principle, that the prevention of crime is to be the sole guide of any Home Secretary, then you are going to put into prison anyone who may commit a crime! There must be some
measure of what the Government is prepared to do in order to prevent crime.
Everybody knows that the fixing of those bounds is as to how far you are prepared in order to carry out that certain principle, in order to stop crime. That is one of the questions which are continually being considered, not only by Home Secretaries, but by every responsible statesman. Here you are going beyond the bounds of what custom has set in this country and the wisdom of our ancestors has established. You are interfering with individual liberty—I admit in the interests of the prevention of crime-but you are going further than Governments in the past have ventured to go in order to achieve that result. It is all a question of how far you ought to go. The Home Secretary says that in the case of non-political crimes you can always get, or you already have, these powers of search. I would go further. I would point out to him, and to the House, that in oases of emergency when there is a general strike that the Emergency Powers Act has been passed. Under that Act you also have the powers of search given by this Clause. There is a Clause in it which gives the police the right to search, exactly, in fact, the rights given by this Clause 31. All that the Government is asking for is that in the case of political crimes, when there is no emergency, they shall have these powers of search. I do protest against the House giving any Government such a right at this time of the night, when it has been clearly sprung upon the House at a moment's notice. It was before the House in Committee upstairs. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] But then, as I understand it, when the Bill was there the Government held out large hopes as to taking out the suspicious elements, or dropping the Clause altogether.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That was never suggested.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Then so much the worse. The right hon. Gentleman might have known about this Clause in the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite who were on that Committee might have known all this; but I am quite certain that the country as a whole outside has not the faintest idea that the Government were contemplating undertaking such powers as to prevent an
Englishman's home being his castle in the most complete degree possible. If there is one thing an Englishman does cling to is the idea—which would appear really to be quite fallacious—that he can' prevent the police going into his house unless he has committed a crime. Here, without the public knowing, you are giving these powers so that any police officer can go to a magistrate, and get powers, not only to enter a man's house but to go through the whole of a man's papers, search his house, and carry away those papers. That is what British citizenship has come to! There was in Brussels during the last week or so a perfect example of what happens abroad. The Belgian Government, acting under powers exactly similar to these now called for by the Government, searched the lodgings of M. Palme Dutt, and we heard wonderful accounts of the discoveries they made. As a matter of fact, I believe that M. Palme Dutt has been released, because they found nothing. We do not want to import the methods of the Continental police into this country, and the Government doing it, though they may carry it in this House, are, I am absolutely certain, acting contrary to the wishes of the vast majority of people in this country.

Mr. LANSBURY: I wish to oppose this Clause which I regard as one of the most pernicious proposals of which even this Government have been guilty. I notice that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are very much amused at any protest against this kind of legislation. It is often argued that we on this side are continually emphasising class distinctions. I would like to know whether they would be quite so hilarious if a Labour Government were bringing in a proposal of this kind at a time when there was great agitation outside the House against the Socialistic programme of that Government. I am quite certain the attitude of mind of hon. and right hon. Gentleman would be entirely different. The argument of the Home Secretary is a most extraordinary one. He says "Because we have got this power in so many cases, let us have some more of it." That seems to me an extraordinary doctrine, especially in view of the statement repeatedly made that there is no politics in this at all. I do not accept that statement. I am
not charging anything dishonourable to the right hon. Gentleman or his advisers, but I am perfectly certain in my own mind that whoever suggested it had at the back of their minds the fact that trade unions, Socialist societies and individuals would be likely to be discussing plans for a general stoppage; and as I understand the Government spokesman in the Courts to-day, it is now going to be held that any of us who encourage a general stoppage, any of us who encourage a general strike, any of us who emphasise the class war, are going to be treated as persons guilty of illegal action. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Very well, I understand that and so can any of us who are holding Socialist branch meetings or trade union branch meetings.
This fact has also to be taken into account, that in the last 30 years we have had introduced into this country the Continental gentleman known as the agent-provocateur, the gentleman who goes around egging people on. I marched in East End processions during the unemployed agitation two or three years ago, and I had men in plain clothes on each side of me, and they were whispering to me as I marched along, "Is it not very nearly time we stopped this b— marching up and down and did something?" [Laughter.] It is all very well for hon. and learned Gentlemen to guffaw about it, but I am stating facts. I am an ordinary sort of person, and if I had listened to these two gentlemen I might quite easily have been in the midst of a kind of a riot, and these two men would have been the men who would have given evidence against me as the person who had led the riot. At my age I hope I have arrived at the age of discretion. The point I want to make is that this same gentleman could quite as easily be egging on men to get what would be considered illegal resolutions discussed and drafted, and when the particular moment arrived for the search there would be this incriminating evidence.
I notice there is a great deal of incredulity amongst hon. Members opposite upon this point, but I happen to have been the victim of one search, although it appears to be a matter causing great mirth. All I can say is that I should very much enjoy living during the time when we shall be living under a Socialist
regime, and I should enjoy seeing hon. Gentlemen opposite treated in the same way in which they are treating the working classes to-day. The levity with which hon. Members are treating an important matter of this kind shows how far we are removed from the old tradition of British freedom and liberty. The idea is not now that the Englishman's home is his castle, because if men meet in an ordinary room in association with their fellows they are open to the attacks of agents-provocateurs, and they are open to having people sent to make searches. I have been present twice on occasions when the police have made searches. I have the greatest faith in the police, but the manner in which searches are carried out for political reasons are perfectly scandalous. In both cases I have no knowledge of what was being taken away or what evidence the police might have procured to be used against me and my friends, and they simply bundled the stuff up and went away with it. No body of men ought to have the right for any offence to go into a man's home or office or into any premises he frequents and profess to find any evidence unless such documents are tabulated in front of the person who is going to be accused in order that there can be no question as to what has been taken. I am certain that this Clause is the thin edge of the wedge of the American system of "framing up." This proposal means the manufacture of bribes and evidence.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: indicated dissent.

Mr. LANSBURY: It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to shake his head because he may be innocent and he may not know where he is going, but if he will only read how labour people are treated in America he will understand that this is the beginning of that system, and it is leaving it entirely open to the police and these agents-provocateur to put away anyone. If any such Clause as this is allowed to go through it should be safeguarded so that no search should be allowed to be made except in the presence of the person who is going to be charged and every document seized should be catalogued and signed. That is only elementary justice, and the manner in which this Clause is drawn is most slipshod. The right hon. Gentleman made a very great
deal of play as to this only being done after sworn evidence before a Justice of the Peace.
I happen to be a Justice of the Peace. You will probably think it a very terrible thing that I am, but, as I understand it, a police constable or a police inspector can come to me and lay an information, and I am to sign a warrant authorising a search in somebody's house. Certainly that would be the case outside the County of London. I do not think that that right out to be given to one individual justice, especially in these days, because, in spite of the fact that you have county committees and all the machinery for recommending the Lord Chancellor who should be appointed justices, I am not going to be so stupid as to say or to believe that political feeling and political argument do not come into the business. It would be very easy for prejudiced Justices of the Peace to get their political opponents dealt with under this Clause.
The right hon. Gentleman said the business of this Clause is to prevent crime, and that that is much better than dealing with crime after it has been committed. We all agree about that, but what we disagree about is as to what is crime. I am a criminal in the eyes of some people because I advocate certain principles. I am a person that ought to be put away and taken care of. [Laughter.] You forget I think exactly the same about you. You see the point is that I do not want to have the power that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen wish to get under this Bill. I am perfectly certain that the Clause as it stands is one which may be used—and I cannot see any other reason for it—and will be used only for political purposes. The right hon. Gentleman quotes Sir Basil Thomson, a gentleman for whom I ought to have some sort of pleasant memory as I have of Sir Archibald Bodkin. Both these gentlemen are much more interested in hunting down, in the first case, Suffragettes and Bolshevists, and to-day the present Public Prosecutor seeks to employ the sharpest minds of Scotland Yard to chase a handful of Communists up and down the country. If these brilliant men who go to public-meetings and hide themselves under the platforms of Communist conferences were engaged in their proper work of detecting crime, I think Sir Basil Thomson
would not have been able to write the kind of book he did. The fact is, during the last 30 or 40 years, the police force, certainly in London, has been used, not for the purpose of putting down ordinary crime, but, first of all, of creating political offences, and then chasing the people they thought guilty of them. That is the sole reason why you have not had so much success as in other days.
I do not believe many members of the House have read this Clause, except those who are on the Committee upstairs. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) is one of the most diligent members of the House, and he has proved to-night that he did not know there was such a clause as this in the Bill. I wonder whether hon. and right hon. Gentlemen really do understand that this Clause says that if a justice is satisfied by information on oath—and it is a very iniquitous proposition because you go to a Justice in his home, not in a Court, and there is just the Justice and a policeman, and when you know that I am a Justice of the Peace you know what Justices of the Peace are, that they are only common or garden people, nothing extraordinary about them, people open to the same sort of feeling, and passion, and hatred, and like and dislike as anybody eke. One single Justice, who may dislike me, may get a policeman, and between them they can have my house searched. Someone on the other side of the House said that they did not mind being searched, because they had nothing to be ashamed of. I do not know that I have either, and we have a couple of Airedale puppies that might make it difficult for the searchers; but when I remember the manner in which these searches of which I have spoken were carried through, I do not want my wife and children to be alarmed by men marching in for no reason at all to search my house, and I do not want them to have the opportunity of leaving evidence about or collecting evidence that was not there. I do not think that anyone has quite realised how easy that is, and until one has gone through the experience one really does not realise it. I must say that
until I went to prison and was before a magistrate and before a judge, I did not realise what a terrible sort of flummery and tomfoolery it all was. It is because I know what a search is that I am taking up the attitude I am taking up here tonight on this Clause. I think the House ought really to be seized of what this Clause really consists of. It says:
If a Justice"—
I repeat that it is one Justice—
is satisfied by information on oath"—
I suppose it is on the oath of an inspector—
that there is reasonable ground for suspecting"—
you are to be searched on suspicion, and on "reasonable ground." Who is going to decide what is a reasonable ground? Everyone knows that, when you come to argue with certain people as to what is reasonable and what is unreasonable, there is any amount of room for differences of opinion, and this seems to me to be a most extraordinary way of providing for such tremendous power—
that there is reasonable ground for suspecting that an indictable offence has been or is about to be committed"—
it is not that an offence has been committed. There is to be no sort of evidence that the man has committed an offence, but only that somebody thinks he may have committed one, or is going to do so. I am quite sure that many an hon. and right hon. Gentleman opposite would cheerfully say that many of us on these benches were going to do something wrong, if we have not done it, and that, therefore, our places would be quite rightly searched—
he may issue a search warrant authorising any constable or other person named in the warrant "—
I would like to know what sort of other person it is to be. Is this a new kind of super-bureaucrat that is going to be invented, or one of those brilliant young men whom the hon. Member for the City recommended to enlist in the police the other day, or one of the M.I.C. on his master's business, about whom we have heard—
at any time or times to enter"—
he may come in in the day or in the night, or he may go into a man's house
when he is not there. I repeat seriously that the planting of evidence on people is quite easy under this Clause. They are to go to a man's home or office whether he is there or not, at any time of the day or night.

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon, Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of this day, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

Adjourned accordingly at Two Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.